Factors impacting on time to diagnosis vary with the stage of diagnosis in YOD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 47 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.
The estimated total annual costs of dementia in China increased from 0.9 billion United States dollars (US$) in 1990 to US$ 47.2 billion in 2010 and were predicted to reach US$ 69.0 billion in 2020 and US$ 114.2 billion in 2030. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Minority Aging Research Study (MARS) is a longitudinal, epidemiologic cohort study of decline in cognitive function and risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in older African Americans, with brain donation after death added as an optional component for those willing to consider organ donation. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The two overarching themes lend themselves to interventions at a service level and a community level which need to happen in synergy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 25,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results provide the first empirical evidence of CF in China. 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,708 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A motor-based MCR syndrome provides a clinical approach to identify individuals at high risk for dementia, especially vascular dementia, to target for further investigations and who may benefit from preventive interventions. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a neurodegenerative disease of growing interest, since it accounts for up to 10% of middle-age-onset dementias and entails a social, economic, and emotional burden for the patients and caregivers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), also known as neuropsychiatric symptoms, represent a heterogeneous group of non-cognitive symptoms and behaviors occurring in subjects with dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were 16,708 eligible encounters during the 12-month study period (June 2022-May 2023). 5 key findings →
Participants: 236 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At baseline, there were 126 participants (106 [84.1%] women); mean (SD) age was 44.13 (12.71) years, mean years of interpreting experience was 8.57 (8.48) years, and 106 of 120 (88.3%) lived in an urban area. 5 key findings →
Participants: 126 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Selected clinical features may identify patients with suspected RPD who are likely to continue to decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 248 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We will assess the utility of auditory perceptual tests, both alone and combined with blood-based biomarkers (pTau217 and NfL), for diagnosis and prognosis in individuals with cognitive symptoms. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 600 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For non-Indigenous peoples, the crude and age-standardised (World Health Organization standard) prevalence of dementia was 10.6 and 7.4 per 1000 persons, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant reduction in underdiagnosis of dementia was observed between the two periods, consistent across most countries. 4 key findings →
Participants: 10,402 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared to good olfaction, moderate olfaction (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26 to 1.86), hyposmia (HR: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.81 to 2.78), and anosmia (HR: 3.47, 95% CI: 2.77 to 4.34) were all associated with higher dementia hazard; these associations were consistent across age, race, sex, and APOE ε4 groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 4,470 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Index participants averaged 71.9 years, with > 50% lacking formal education. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,309 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the whole population (N = 1,214,286) and the subpopulation (N = 88,565), 5 % had no risk factors, 12 % had only one, and 82 % had multiple. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,214,286 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 893 participants with average age 93 years (range 90-102), 43 % had SMC. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 893 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hypertension, acute myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, stroke, and arthritis additively accounted for 71.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62.9%-79.1%) of ADRD incident cases based on LE-AAF. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
Racial disparities in dementia may be reduced by prevention and management of disease and promoting educational attainment among blacks and Hispanics. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Both scales are useful instruments for the clinical assessment of fluctuation in dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Noncognitive neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) of dementia (aggression, agitation, depression, anxiety, delusions, hallucinations, apathy, disinhibition) affect individuals with dementia nearly universally across dementia stages and etiologies. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
Significant research gaps remain. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prevalence of dementia varies substantially worldwide. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
Alzheimer's disease (AD) accounts for 60%-70% of all dementia cases, and clinical diagnosis at its early stage is extremely difficult. 2 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
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