Poorer OI in older adults without dementia was associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,428 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Our findings suggest a high global dementia prevalence in LAC countries and an unequal burden of dementia for women, lower-educated, and rural residents. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this large cohort of older adults, long-term PM2.5 exposure was associated with increased dementia incidence. 3 key findings →
Participants: 541 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Further studies should bridge the gap in understanding and give a more global portrait by adding important personal variables such as dementia, organizational variables such as use of community and primary care, and contextual variables such as social and economic frailty. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found no statistically significant difference in measures of WM injury by race and ethnicity after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and socioeconomic status. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,036 Evidence: low
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
Per 1-m/s increase in ePWV was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 1.51(1.30-1.75) for dementia and 1.58(1.33-1.89) for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and with an MMSE score decline (adjusted β-coefficient = -0.36; 95% CI = -0.52 to -0.21). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,857 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ARIC study enrolled 15,792 participants (27% Black) aged 45-64 years. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15,792 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 2,183 participants (mean ± SD age 79 ± 4.5 years, 58% female, 24% Black), 176 (8%) developed dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,183 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although, anatomical disparities of the rodent medial prefrontal cortex compared to the primate homologue are apparent, current rodent models have effectively implicated the medial prefrontal cortex as a neural substrate of cognitive decline within ageing and dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
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
59/100
International hospital-based studies have indicated a high risk of cognitive impairment after stroke, evidence from community-based studies in China is scarce. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 599 Evidence: low
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
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
The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between data on cerebral amyloidosis, derived using Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography and (i) multi-laboratory INNOTEST enzyme linked immunosorbent assay derived cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of amyloid-β42; (ii) centrally measured cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-β42 using a Meso Scale Discovery enzyme linked immunosorbent assay; and (iii) cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-β42 centrally measured using an antibody-independent mass spectrometry-based reference method. 3 key findings →
Participants: 243 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Midlife CVRFs, especially hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and smoking, are common and associated with accelerated cognitive decline at midlife. 5 key findings →
Participants: 143 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
Our search resulted in the inclusion and full-text review of 137 articles. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
The rate of cognitive change in elderly persons with and without diabetes mellitus is similar, although cognitive performance is poorer in persons with diabetes mellitus. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,493 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Less EQ and YoE were associated with brain alterations across groups. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 7,533 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this study, we report the experience of the only reference clinical next-generation sequencing lab in Saudi Arabia with the first 1000 families who span a wide-range of suspected Mendelian phenotypes. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,019 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest cutoffs may need to be stratified by race/ethnicity and education to ensure detecting MCI from normal and MCI from dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,895 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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