Beneficiaries had an average age of 75.3 years and were predominately female (59%) and non-Hispanic whites (93%). 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,002 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.
60/100
Participants were most likely to develop depression, apathy, or anxiety, and least likely to develop elation or disinhibition. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Digital RT proved an innovative approach to manage PWD and will thus help PWD achieve a better mood and have more opportunities to engage in social interactions. 3 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Median survival after the onset of dementia is much shorter than has previously been estimated. 1 key finding →
Participants: 10,263 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The weighted prevalence of dementia at provincial level in China in 2018 ranged from 2.62% (95%BCI: 1.70%, 3.91%) to 13.53% (95%BCI: 8.82%, 20.93%). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 17,176 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A multidimensional social exposome (MSE)-the combined lifespan measures of education, food insecurity, financial status, access to healthcare, childhood experiences, and more-may shape dementia risk and brain health over the lifespan, particularly in underserved regions like Latin America. 1 key finding →
Participants: 2,211 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The majority of the assessed health care data did not show significant differences between urban and rural SHA inhabitants. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 133 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
60/100
Of 689 participants, CI was associated with delirium (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.64, 95% CI: 1.31, 9.49, P-value = 0.009), 90-day complications (aOR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.14, 4.28, P-value = 0.015), and 90-day composite adverse outcomes (aOR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.03, 3.81, P-value = 0.033). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 689 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium and dementia are two frequent causes of cognitive impairment among older adults and have a distinct, complex and interconnected relationship. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is commonly associated with more than 1 neuropathology, usually Alzheimer disease with cerebrovascular pathology. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
Frontotemporal dementia is an umbrella clinical term that encompasses a group of neurodegenerative diseases characterised by progressive deficits in behaviour, executive function, or language. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Since its opening in 2000, patient care and research go hand in hand at the Alzheimer center of the VU University Medical Center, both organized in such a way that they mutually strengthen each other. 1 key finding →
Participants: 4,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
The 6-item RUDAS is portable and tests multiple cognitive domains. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 166 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
This study is the first to document concurrent prevalence of primary dementia subtypes among this US population. 1 key finding →
Participants: 21 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Such complex needs require an integrated response from general health professionals and multidisciplinary dementia specialists. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 291,169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
Increased BPSD was reported in 59.6% of patients as worsening of preexisting symptoms (51.9%) or as new onset (26%), and requested drug modifications in 27.6% of these cases. 4 key findings →
Participants: 4,913 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study did not find evidence to suggest that the ratio of dementia risk across Black and White individuals changed in the US between 2000 and 2016. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Larger gains in rural adults' cognitive functioning between 2000 and 2010 that are linked with increased educational attainment demonstrate long-term public health benefits of investment in secondary education. 4 key findings →
Participants: 16,386 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
HZ vaccination is associated with reduced risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 136,016 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
Dramatic global increases in future numbers of people with dementia have been predicted. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From molecular mechanisms to global brain networks, atypical fluctuations are the hallmark of neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Participants: 300 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Unsupervised machine learning identifies high likelihood of dementia in population-based surveys, even without cognitive and behavioral measures and without the need of clinical diagnosis of dementia in a subsample of the population. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18,165 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
Vascular dementia is one of the most common causes of dementia after Alzheimer's disease, causing around 15% of cases. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
Non-specific codes were most common. Alzheimer's and vascular dementia codes showed high regional variability. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,016 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this study's cohort of 155 individuals with SETRS (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [10.3] years; 56 female participants [36.1%]), 153 of 155 (98.7%) scored below the cutoff of 26 for mild cognitive impairment, and 73 of 155 (47.1%) scored below the cutoff of 10 for severe dementia (mean [SD] MoCA score, 9.8 [6.4]). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 155 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