27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Deficits of semantic cognition in semantic dementia and in aphasia consequent on CVA (stroke) are qualitatively different. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When analyzing multiple mobility metrics together, different combinations of mobility metrics are related to specific adverse health outcomes. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Intraindividual cognitive variability (IIV), a measure of within-person variability across cognitive measures at a single time point, is associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Women living in areas with higher walkability showed slower rates of decline in immediate (estimate=0.019, SE=0.009) and delayed recall (estimate=0.018, SE=0.008) (Figure 1). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants' age ranged from 45 to 87, 53% were women, and 26% were diagnosed with dementia (39% AD, 18% Lewy Body and 17% Frontotemporal Dementia; Table 1). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 255 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study reveals significant differences in driving patterns between cognitively normal older adults and those with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Ten‐year Black‐White disparities in prison population are associated with cognitive decline among people racialized as Black starting one year later. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,300 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Central-northern rural communities exhibited the most pronounced high-high spatial clustering of cognitive impairment (Global Moran's I = 0.17, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18,963 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants with impaired hearing (n = 179) were older (73.9 vs. 71.4 years, p <0.001), often male (61.5% vs. 36.5%, p <0.001), and had lower cognitive scores than normal-hearing individuals (n = 241). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 179 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Across all participants, momentary effects of environmental distractions were minimal. 5 key findings →
Participants: 380 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ToAI framework followed a nine-step process: preparation, translation, native-speaker review, VIP team review, external panel review, pilot testing, proofreading, final formatting, and ongoing review and improvement. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We demonstrate that senolytic treatment is an effective therapeutic strategy to mitigate cognitive impairment by reducing neuroinflammation and associated metabolic disturbances. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia reduces a person's ability to perform their activities of daily living and is the leading cause of morbidity worldwide. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Globally populations are ageing. By 2050, it is estimated that there will be two billion people aged 60 years or over, of which 131 million are projected to be affected by dementia, while depression is predicted to be the second leading cause of disability worldwide by 2020. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Self-assessed sensory impairment is independently associated with cognitive decline and incident possible CIND and probable dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The number of elderly is growing rapidly, including those that struggle with cognitive decline and, consequently, activities of daily living. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Cache County Study of Memory in Aging (CCMS) is an epidemiological study of Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive disorders, and aging in a population of exceptionally long-lived individuals (7th to 11th decade). 1 key finding →
Participants: 507 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We propose that brain energy deficit is an important pre-symptomatic feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) that requires closer attention in the development of AD therapeutics. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There are many factors that strongly influence the aetiology, development, and progression of cognitive decline in old age, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Approximately half of the sample were persistently food secure, 17% became food secure, 14% became FI, and 15% experienced persistent FI. 5 key findings →
Participants: 9,654 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher segregation, indicated by lower tract and county-level interaction, was associated with better cognitive and everyday functioning levels but faster rates of decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 695 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
[95% CI] = 0.148 [0.077-0.219]; executive function, 0.138 [0.067-0.208]; episodic memory, 0.020 [-0.051 to 0.091]; working memory, 0.128 [0.059-0.197]; visuospatial processing, 0.094 [0.023-0.164]) outperformed area-level SES in detecting cognitive deficits, and demonstrated widespread associations with poorer performance across cognitive domains. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants racialized as Black who lived in places with higher levels of area‐level structural socioeconomic racism experienced lower levels of cognition at baseline and at varying time points in the six‐year period—compared to those in places with lower structural socioeconomic racism. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,172 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To balance high-quality measurement of cognitive domains and maintain the ability to perform meaningful cross-national comparisons, each HCAP should include a common set of at least three to four continuously distributed test items per domain that can link domains across studies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive decline is a condition affecting almost one sixth of the elder population and is widely regarded as one of the first manifestations of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 145 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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.
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.
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 27,380 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →