These data suggest that having both diabetes and APOE epsilon4 increases the risk of dementia, especially for AD and mixed AD. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We determined whether higher endogenous estradiol levels were associated with lower risk of dementia in older men and women not using hormonal replacement therapy, using a case-cohort design within the Rotterdam Study, a population-based follow-up study on chronic diseases, including dementia, in 7983 subjects aged 55 years or older, and ongoing since 1990. 4 key findings →
Participants: 7,983 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Significant interactions between amyloid status and modifiable risk factors were observed for diabetes (adjusted β = -0.206, p = 0.032), high cholesterol (adjusted β = -0.155, p < 0.001), and physical inactivity (adjusted β = -0.161, p = 0.046), indicating combined effects rather than additive effects on cognitive decline among Aβ+ individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,707 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We studied the association between mid-life smoking and late-life dementia in the Honolulu Heart Program (1965-1971) and follow-up assessment for dementia (1991-1996) of 3734 Japanese-American men (80% of survivors). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Antioxidants have been hypothesized to protect against Alzheimer's disease, but studies conducted in late life have been inconsistent. 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,459 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There were 7458 incident all-cause dementia cases (1636 VaD, 3376 AD) after 4,165,352 person-years of follow-up. 5 key findings →
Participants: 313,248 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
52/100
In a general population sample, we determined incidence of dementia and of probable AD and will use these incident cases for study of precursors and natural history in this elderly cohort, which has been under close surveillance for over 40 years.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The results underscore the importance of reducing the number of cardiovascular risk factors for maintaining CBF and cognition in an aging population. 5 key findings →
Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hippocampal atrophy (HA) is usually attributed to the neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques of Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
50/100
Blood pressure and indicators of small-vessel disease in the brain may be associated with atrophy of structures affected by Alzheimer pathology. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
= 0.005). Cox regression analysis revealed that polypharmacy was significantly associated with a reduced risk of MCI progression to dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.78) after adjusting for covariates. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma biomarkers such as phospho-tau species are increasingly used in clinical practice for the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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. Show only studies that are free to read
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated