27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), the most prevalent dementia, is partially driven by genetics. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 94,437 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,791 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In analyses that addressed bias due to reverse causation, physical inactivity was not associated with all-cause dementia or Alzheimer's disease, although an indication of excess dementia risk was observed in a subgroup of physically inactive individuals who developed cardiometabolic disease. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 404 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease dementia, jointly known as Lewy body dementia, are common neurodegenerative conditions. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Letters18 February 2020Geographic Variation in Prevalence of Adult Obesity in China: Results From the 2013–2014 National Chronic Disease and Risk Factor SurveillanceXiao Zhang, MD, PhD, Mei Zhang, MD, PhD, Zhenping Zhao, MD, Zhengjing Huang, MPH, Qian Deng, MD, PhD, Yichong Li, MD, PhD, An Pan, MD, PhD, Chun Li, MD, Zhihua Chen, MD, Maigeng Zhou, MD, PhD, Chao Yu, PhD, Alfred Stein, PhD, Peng Jia, PhD*, and Limin Wang, MPH*Xiao Zhang, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Mei Zhang, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhenping Zhao, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhengjing Huang, MPHNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Qian Deng, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Yichong Li, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), An Pan, MD, PhDSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China (A.P.), Chun Li, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhihua Chen, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Maigeng Zhou, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From a total of 146 patients, 111 patients were included (67 men [60.4%]; mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 62.5 [11.5] years). 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sarcopenia is highly prevalent in individuals with CVD, dementia, diabetes mellitus and respiratory disease. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher levels of VRFs were associated with poorer brain health across grey and white matter macrostructure and microstructure. 5 key findings →
Participants: 9,722 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 3,162 cases of dementia occurred during the follow-up. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 49,511 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over the 3-year follow-up, almost 10% of participants developed dementia and 14% were deceased. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 15,394 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hypertension has emerged as a leading cause of age-related cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older adults with cognitive decline are vulnerable to various health problems. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 147 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Clinical studies found that elevated cortisol was associated with poorer overall cognitive functioning, as well as with poorer episodic memory, executive functioning, language, spatial memory, processing speed, and social cognition; while in animals, glucocorticoid administration resulted in cognitive impairment and abnormal behavior. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
32.5% of elderly with dementia and 16.9% without were treated with an opioid in 2015. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 36,014 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive dysfunction, including mild cognitive impairment and dementia, is increasingly recognised as an important comorbidity and complication of diabetes that affects an individual's well-being and diabetes management, and is associated with diabetes treatment-related complications. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology is extremely heterogeneous, and the evolution from preclinical to mild cognitive impairment until dementia is driven by interacting genetic/biological mechanisms not fully captured by current clinical/research criteria. 2 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Alzheimer's disease (AD) afflicted brain is neuropathologically defined by extracellular amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and intraneuronal neurofibrillary tangles composed of hyperphosphorylated tau protein. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In China, the crude mortality from AD and other forms of dementia increased from 2009 to 2015, but the age-standardized mortality decreased. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found 5 distinct clusters of subjects (N=38, N=16, N=24, N=14, N=21) with a composition statistically independent from that obtained using available clinical diagnostic criteria (each cluster included all phenotypical groups). 3 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fast-food outlet exposure may be an important environmental determinant of BMI. 4 key findings →
Participants: 124,286 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The effect of austerity and associated budgets are strong contenders,3Ruckert A Labonté R Health inequities in the age of austerity: the need for social protection policies. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Taken together, they move us a little closer toward our goals of achieving health equity. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Day care has a place in the menu of service for people with dementia living in the community. 1 key finding →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
OpenStreetMap provides a valuable crowd-sourced database of raw geospatial data for constructing models of urban street networks for scientific analysis. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Healthy Brain Initiative: The Public Health Road Map for State and National Partnerships was recently updated for years 2018-2022, which includes recommendations for implementing emergency preparedness (EP) measures at the state and local levels with attention to the unique needs of people living with Alzheimer's disease and other related dementias (ADRD). 2 key findings →
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →