Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major cause of dementia and cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The telmisartan group had the lowest risk of all dementias (telmisartan vs NT-ARB: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60 to 1.01; telmisartan vs angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.94). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 39,665 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, the available evidence suggests that natural compounds confer multitarget neuroprotective effects that directly engage with key pathological mechanisms underlying AD. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 41 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
Among 4392 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.8] years; 2359 [53.7%] women), 723 (16.5%) were APOE ε4 heterozygotes and 33 (0.8%) were APOE ε4 homozygotes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,392 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Disclosure (N = 194) and non-disclosure (N = 180) groups did not differ on IGT-AD (mean disclosure-non-disclosure difference [MD] at 6 weeks: -1.5, p = 0.14; 9 months: -1.2, p = 0.35; 15 months: -2.0, p = 0.07), IES-R (MD at 6 weeks: 0.00, p = 0.98; 9 months: 0.01, p = 0.84; 15 months: 0.03, p = 0.64), or change in secondary outcomes. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 194 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study evaluates the quantile-aggregation method using both simulated data and publicly available Alzheimer disease randomized trial data. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Obesity promotes carcinogenesis through interlocking metabolic, inflammatory, immune, and hormonal pathways. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this observational study, zinc deficiency was associated with increased 1-year mortality and infection-related complications in patients with dementia, with evidence of a dose–response relationship. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,241 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
A total of 1,345 individuals were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,345 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
Hearing impairment is implicated as a risk factor for the incidence of all-cause dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 158,686 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
If a substantial synergetic effect is detected, it may lead to the use of more widespread concurrent physical and cognitive training and the potential development of methods to make concurrent training practical. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 126 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are neuroimaging markers widely interpreted as caused by cerebral small vessel disease, yet emerging evidence suggests that a subset may have a neurodegenerative etiology. 1 key finding →
Participants: 32,526 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Simufilam did not meet co-primary or secondary endpoints in these Phase 3 trials. 3 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this real-life crossover study, THC/CBD oil did not show superiority over placebo in reducing agitation in severe dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 25 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Copy-number variants (CNVs) are major contributors to human disease. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control Participants: 22,319 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
The APOE-ε4/ε4 genotype is the strongest genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer's disease, though the relative risk is diminished in individuals with African ancestry. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia diagnosis increasingly relies on blood-based biomarkers, yet their performance in diverse populations remains insufficiently characterized. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 605 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
On average, participants were aged 63 years and had 16 years of education. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The human metabolome reflects complex metabolic states affected by genetic and environmental factors. 5 key findings →
Participants: 23,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Self- and informant-reported ADL and IADL impairments were examined at overall and item levels. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,050 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia poses a significant global health challenge for both clinicians and patients, impacting millions of individuals worldwide, yet its early diagnosis remains underexplored. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 415 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 70 autopsied individuals (62 male, 8 female; mean [SD] age, 64.40 [13.94] years), 20 showed CTE-NC in the brain. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
UNDERLYING BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS PNDs result from a complex interplay of multiple biological, genetic, and environmental factors (Table 1). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,900 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
Poor oral health and genetic susceptibility have each been linked to dementia risk, but their joint effects and subtype-specific associations remain unclear. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,553 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
< 0.01). Using an operationalization of clinical criteria for LATE, 8.2% of participants with MCI or dementia from our tertiary memory clinic were classified as Possible-LATE, Probable-LATE, or LATE-AD. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →