Healthy cognitive ageing is a societal and public health priority. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 22,059 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The APOE-ε4 allele has long been associated with increased risks of Alzheimer's disease and mortality, but the effect of the less prevalent APOE-ε2 allele on diseases in the elderly and survival remains elusive. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 38,537 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The lack of strong association between brain beta-amyloid deposition and cognitive impairment has been a challenge for the Alzheimer's disease (AD) field. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 678 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
GRN mutations cause progranulin haploinsufficiency, which eventually leads to frontotemporal dementia (FTD-GRN). 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disease, whose etiology results from a complex interplay between environmental and genetic factors. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 76 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Olink Proteomics panel of inflammation markers ( https://www.olink.com/products/inflammation/ ) will be used to evaluate 92 proteins associated with inflammatory diseases and related biological processes. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 50 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found up to 270-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and RA, up to 160-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and UC, up to 180-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and T1D, and up to 175-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and CeD. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 192,886 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with the usual care clinics (12-month incidence, 213 of 1724 [12.4%]), the odds of an incident ADRD diagnosis were higher in the clinics randomized to QDRS plus PDM (12-month incidence, 355 of 2301 [15.4%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.64) but not the clinics randomized to PDM only (12-month incidence, 134 of 1300 [10.3%]; AOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63-1.11]). 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 5,325 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 92 383 participants, 60 582 (65.6%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 56.4 (8.0) years. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 92,383 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this cohort study, a higher number of steps was associated with lower risk of all-cause dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 78,430 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
70/100
In this nationwide population-based study, SGLT2i use significantly reduced the risks of neurodegenerative disorders in patients with type 2 diabetes independent of various factors including comorbidities and bioclinical parameters. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 358,862 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of this cohort study suggest that hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, especially among people not using hearing aids, suggesting that hearing aids might prevent or delay the onset and progression of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 573,088 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
70/100
Using datasets from a wide range of geographical regions, we found that both early life education and adulthood occupational complexity were independently predictive of dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,195 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Predicting not just if, but also when, cognitively unimpaired individuals are likely to develop onset of Alzheimer's disease (AD) symptoms would be useful to clinical trials and, eventually, clinical practice. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 603 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Main results We included 82 studies with 10,613 participants; 72 studies with 9783 participants provided extractable data. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,613 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma p-tau217 is a prognostic marker for identifying individuals who will develop cognitive impairment within ten years. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Analyses measured the associations between predictor variables and the memory score, and whether AT(N) biomarker profiles significantly improved prediction of memory z score rates of change beyond a model with clinical and genetic variables only. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 480 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study found that CSF-based estimates using adjusted data-driven cutoffs were up to 10% higher than PET-based estimates in people without dementia, whereas the results were similar among people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 97 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These were compared with the prevalence of 3 clinically defined diagnostic groups (mild cognitive impairment or dementia, dementia, and clinically defined probable Alzheimer disease). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,660 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that this blood biomarker test could allow for distinguishing individuals with brain amyloid-positive PET findings from individuals with amyloid-negative PET findings and serve as an aid for Alzheimer disease diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 249 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 6256 participants (3402 women [54.4%]; mean [SD] age at baseline, 61.7 [6.6] years), 510 received an all-cause dementia diagnosis within 17 years of baseline. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 766 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 2,277 individuals had at least 1 baseline blood biomarker available (n = 357 for CSF subsample, n = 649 for PET subsample), among whom 257 were diagnosed with clinical AD/mixed dementia during follow-up. 2 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 357 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, the importance of detailed cognitive phenotyping in patients without dementia when interpreting p-tau217 results remains unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,323 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We analyzed 1,240 MRIs from 473 patients (age: 69.2 ± 7.4 [range: 49-87]; 32.8% women). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,240 Evidence: moderate
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 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.
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 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 →