Population-based estimates for the epidemiology of FTD varied widely in the included studies. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
DLB becomes more common with increasing age and accounts for about 5% of all dementia cases in older populations. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older adults with diabetes and dementia are at increased risk for hypoglycemia and other adverse events associated with tight glycemic control and are unlikely to experience long-term benefits. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 15,880 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found no evidence to support the theory that natural variation in cumulative exposure to endogenous oestrogens across the reproductive period influences dementia incidence in late life. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The objective is to identify risk factors associated with PASC/long-COVID diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 8,325 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older, healthy women with decreased circadian activity rhythm amplitude and robustness, and delayed rhythms have increased odds of developing dementia and MCI. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean baseline age of the veterans was 68.8 years, and 174 806 (96.5%) were men. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Angiotensin receptor blockers are associated with a significant reduction in the incidence and progression of Alzheimer's disease and dementia compared with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or other cardiovascular drugs in a predominantly male population. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Type 2 diabetes is associated with cognitive dysfunction and structural brain changes. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sarcopenia is highly prevalent in individuals with CVD, dementia, diabetes mellitus and respiratory disease. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No systematic review of epidemiological evidence has examined risk factors for sleep disturbances among older adults. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MetS was associated with an increased incidence of MCI and progression to dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 984 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
65/100
We aimed to verify the association between diabetes and the risk of dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and vascular dementia in twins and to explore whether genetic and early-life environmental factors could contribute to this association. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 13,693 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 342 recommendations (285 supported by research data and 57 good practice points) and 40 key messages have been formulated. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sample 1 included 1656 participants (mean [range] age, 58.1 [29.7-85.6] years; 903 female [54.5%]), and sample 2 included 935 participants (mean [range] age, 67.6 [60.0-85.6] years; 518 female [55.4%]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,656 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 450 111 participants were included in the study (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [9.8] years; 70.8% women) and followed up during a median (IQR) time of 14.9 (4.1) years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 111 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 14 685 participants (7355 female [50%] and 7330 male [50%]; mean [SD] age, 73.8 [8.5] years) who met the inclusion criteria, 221 participants (1.5%) developed LOE during follow-up. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 713 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After a median follow-up time of 14.3 (7.9-20.0) years, dementia was recorded in 530 (1.2%) individuals with type 1 diabetes and 1,867 (0.9%) age-, sex-, and county-matched control individuals (mean baseline age 33.0 [14.0] years). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 43,440 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a mean follow-up of 7.9 years, 694 incident dementia cases occurred. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 82,391 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.009). Significant differences in annualized changes in these FA and MD values were found depending on the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes and smoking. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,471 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In patients with Alzheimer's disease pathophysiological changes of the brain that initiate the onset of Alzheimer's disease include accumulation of amyloid-β plaques and phosphorylation of tau-tangles. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,962 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings illuminate the potential benefits of ChEI treatment in DLB patients. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 1,095 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The higher risk of AD among blacks may stem from lower level of cognitive test performance persisting throughout the observation period rather than faster rate of late-life cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 7,735 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Better sleep consolidation attenuates the effect of APOE genotype on incident AD and development of neurofibrillary tangle pathology. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 698 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
64/100
These results support the hypothesis that the appearance of WMH follows age and disease-dependent regional distribution patterns, potentially influenced by differential underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and possibly with a differential link to vascular and neurodegenerative changes. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,836 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Where “Free full text” comes from
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled.
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
- Journal tier up to 10 pts
- Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
- Study design up to 12 pts
- Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
- Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
- How recent up to 5 pts
- Sample size up to 4 pts
- Effect reported up to 3 pts
- Studied in people up to 3 pts
- Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
- Times cited up to 7 pts
- Citations per year up to 5 pts
- Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
- Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
- Still being cited up to 4 pts
- Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
- Institution's track record up to 3 pts
- Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
- Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
- Free to read up to 2 pts
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 31,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
What this library is — and isn't
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.
See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events