27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among 4080 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 66.5 (8.9) years, and 2241 (54.9%) were female. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,080 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ARIA-positive patients had significantly higher Fazekas scores compared with ARIA-negative patients (1.37 versus 1.0; P = .0262), indicating a greater DWMH burden. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Addressing modifiable dementia risk factors requires reliable risk assessment methods. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cohort study compares the risk of incident all-cause dementia among people with hearing loss who use vs do not use hearing aids. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over recent decades, Brazil has amassed a wealth of knowledge regarding the potential effects of climate change on its biodiversity. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Approximately half (54.5%, 35/55) of participants showed a decline in RBMT scores during the 2-year follow-up and were defined as the memory decline group. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During follow-up ranging from 1.0 to 22.9 years, 75 patients (29.88%) converted to AD. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 75 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This is because of the ambiguity surrounding the terminology used to characterize reversible dementia—the variation in the population being studied, or the existence of subclinical instances that are difficult to diagnose.[3] By and large however, the proportion of reversible dementias compared to the irreversible dementias is very low. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A multivariate analysis was also performed to predict specific risk factors associated with male and female EOAD and LOAD patients. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,212 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The rural setting presented unique challenges including: low literacy rates (60.1% of participants had no schooling), diverse language use (primarily Giriama and Swahili), limited infrastructure (e.g., 44.8% of households had electricity), restrictive cultural norms that influenced data collection (e.g., in-home interviews were often conducted outdoors with destructions). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
SB-C significantly differentiated cognitively unimpaired and impaired groups (P < 0.001), correlated with standard cognitive measures, and showed moderate-to-high area under the curve (0.56-0.82) for classifying biomarker positivity, with strongest results in BioFINDER-Primary Care. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, 2023 data indicate that Alzheimer's will likely resume its place as the sixth‐leading cause of death. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The rising age of the global population has made Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) a critical public health problem, with significant health-related disparities observed between rural and urban areas. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study presents findings from IDEA Café, for older adults aged 50 and older living with early dementia, dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease or cognitive impairment (ED/CI) with no informal caregiver or care partner. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma p-tau217 and p-tau231 were most effective in diagnosing aMCI/AD (AUC = 0.95 and 0.93, respectively), while p-tau217, p-tau231 and p-tau181 presented the best differential diagnosis for AD from PSP, FTD and DLB respectively (AUC = 0.84, 0.81 and 0.83). α-synuclein was presented as the best biomarker for PSP variant and behavior variant FTD subtypes (AUC = 0.81 and 0.74, respectively). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 668 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found no significant difference in dementia incidence over a 20‐year follow‐up period compared with matched TIA‐free controls. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 297 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with those without CMD, those with CMD multimorbidity had an elevated risk of ACD (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.27, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.95-2.63), AD (HR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.13-1.97), and VD (HR: 3.70, 95% CI: 2.93-4.69). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 287,748 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 510 memory-clinic subjects(N = 155 cognitive decline), RetiPhenoAge associated with incident cognitive decline (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.64, p = 0.004), and incident dementia (SHR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02-2.01, p = 0.036). 5 key findings →
Participants: 155 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified 62 928 patients with OSA and 62 928 in the propensity score-matched comparison cohort (76% male, median age 52 years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 928 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Each 1-unit increase in cumulative score was associated with a 3%-8% higher dementia hazard across cohorts. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 23,305 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals with both physical frailty and depression had the highest risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 947 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The GBT model achieved the best AUC-ROC scores of 0.809-0.833 across 1- to 5-year prediction windows. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 380,269 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In our dataset search, we identified 108 910 people with a record indicating dementia at any time. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 9,819 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the 393 497 All of Us participants with linked EHRs, we identified 9444 individuals (2.40%) with glaucoma diagnoses (excluding participants with diagnoses of dementia before glaucoma) and 37 776 matched controls without glaucoma. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,756 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The reviewed studies demonstrated that wearable sensors, particularly those employing multimodal data and personalized machine learning models, enable reliable detection of agitation symptoms and support timely, tailored interventions. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 →