The findings highlight the regional specificity of the association of WMHs with AD. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 717 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 conclude that higher education AD patients experience faster cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 312 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We examined the neuropsychological test performance of a randomly selected community sample of English-speaking non-Hispanic African American and white elders in northern Manhattan. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Impaired memory and language were useful predictors of transition to AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,364 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Blood-based AD biomarker concentrations are associated with pathological and clinical diagnoses and can predict future development of clinical AD, providing evidence that they can be incorporated into multi-ethnic, community-based studies. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
61/100
The TICS has high diagnostic validity for identification of dementia among ethnically diverse older adults, especially when supported by the DQ and prior visit data. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 256 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The objective of the study was to examine variability across multiple prospective cohort studies in level and rate of cognitive decline by race/ethnicity and years of education. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,115 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that depressive symptoms precede memory decline, but not vice versa, in late life. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,425 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
Older age and vascular disease, particularly among African Americans, are associated with increased brain atrophy and WMH burden. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 769 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This risk score could be used to identify persons at risk of LOAD, but can also be used to adjust for confounders in epidemiologic studies. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Attenuation of racial inequalities in older age can be extended to cognitive outcomes, which probably reflects selective survival. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,875 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
High HDL-C levels in elderly individuals may be associated with a decreased risk of AD. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
54/100
This study does not support a protective effect of bilingualism on age-related cognitive decline or the development of dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,067 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results add to the body of evidence on the adverse impact of ambient air pollution on cognitive aging and brain health and provide new insights into the genetic and behavioral factors that may impact individual susceptibility. 4 key findings →
Participants: 4,821 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a large multi-center study designed to develop optimized methods for acquiring longitudinal neuroimaging, cognitive, and biomarker measures of AD progression in a large cohort of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment, and healthy controls. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2016, the UC Davis Latino Aging Research Resource Center and UC Davis Alzheimer's Disease Center brought together experts from across the country to consolidate current knowledge and identify future directions in aging and diversity research. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The current study sought to determine if discrepancies in quality of education could explain differences in cognitive test scores between African American and White elders matched on years of education. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this article, the challenges faced by several noted population studies for Alzheimer dementia in operationalizing current clinical diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been reviewed. 4 key findings →
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
- 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