31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among older adults without cognitive impairment or dementia, both an unfavorable lifestyle and high genetic risk were significantly associated with higher dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 383 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The overall weighted PAF for potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia was 39·5% (95% CI 37·5-41·6) in China (n=2162 participants), 41·2% (39·1-43·4) in India (n=2004), and 55·8% (54·9-56·7) in our Latin American sample (n=12 865). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,162 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During 1 110 831 person-years at risk, we recorded 245 573 hospitalisations in the Finnish cohorts; the corresponding numbers in the UK study were 60 946 hospitalisations in 186 572 person-years. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 9,838 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Adherence to the Life Simple 7 ideal cardiovascular health recommendations in midlife was associated with a lower risk of dementia later in life. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,899 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
More frequent social contact at age 60 years was associated with lower dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR] for each SD higher social contact frequency = 0.88 [95% CI 0.79, 0.98], p = 0.02); effect size of the association of social contact at 50 or 70 years with dementia was similar (0.92 [95% CI 0.83, 1.02], p = 0.13 and 0.91 [95% CI 0.78, 1.06], p = 0.23, respectively) but not statistically significant. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 10,228 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Being married is associated with reduced risk of dementia than widowed and lifelong single people, who are also underdiagnosed in routine clinical practice. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Risk stratification is critical for the early identification of high-risk individuals and disease prevention. 3 key findings →
Participants: 117,981 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multimorbidity (hazard ratio [HR] 4·12 [95% CI 3·41-4·98]), frailty (HR 2·38 [95% CI 1·93-2·93]), and disability (HR 1·73 [95% CI 1·34-2·22]) were associated with increased risk of mortality; these associations were not modified by socioeconomic status. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 308 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Socioeconomic differences in dementia risk can be partly explained by differences in modifiable health conditions and lifestyle factors. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,346 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MPF (%WC, −2.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), −2.99, −1.13) and UPF (%WC, −1.05 (95% CI, −1.98, −0.13)) resulted in weight loss, with significantly greater %WC on MPF (Δ%WC, −1.01 (95% CI, −1.87, −0.14), P = 0.024; Cohen’s d , −0.48 (95% CI, −0.91, −0.06)). 2 key findings →
Participants: 55 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The overall unadjusted pooled odds ratio for the progression of MCI to dementia in people with diabetes/MetS was 1.67 (95% CI 1.27-2.19); the pooled odds ratio for progression in diabetes + MCI was 1.53 (95% CI 1.20-1.97) and in people with MetS + MCI was 2.95 (95% CI 1.23-7.05). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APPLE-Tree is an accessible intervention associated with small improvements in cognition, although these results were not statistically significant. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT Participants: 746 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results suggest that having an increased body weight or abdominal obesity are associated with increased dementia incidence. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 453 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, as well as models of care for fracture prevention. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No significant association was found between MHT use and risk of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,016,055 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Diabetes increased the risk of conversion to dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria and quality assessments. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From October 2018 to March 2020, 58 participants were recruited (29 per group, 95% [86%-99%]). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 58 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Female participants had a lower hazard of early-onset dementia compared with males (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61-0·80]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 544,442 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this Seminar, we highlight the main developments in the field of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frailty is strongly associated with dementia risk and affects the risk attributable to genetic factors. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,762 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 8870 cases of all-cause dementia were observed over a median 13.9-year follow-up. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 782 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Each additional copy of the apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele is associated with a higher risk of Alzheimer's dementia, while the APOE2 allele is associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer's dementia, it is not yet known whether APOE2 homozygotes have a particularly low risk. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At the First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia in March, 2015, 160 delegates, including representatives from 80 WHO Member States and four UN agencies, agreed on a call for action to reduce the global burden of dementia by fostering a collective effort to advance research. 5 key findings →
Participants: 201 Evidence: low
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 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.
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