A four month, parallel group, placebo controlled trial undertaken in three centres in Tehran, Iran. 2 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: low
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.
Although cholinesterase inhibitors have produced statistically significant treatment effects, their clinical meaningfulness in Alzheimer's disease is disputed. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To assess age-, sex-, and subtype-specific incidence rates of dementia and to calculate the risk of dementia, the authors performed a large, community-based, prospective cohort study on dementia as part of the Rotterdam Study. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,046 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Rotterdam Study previously found that higher dietary intakes of vitamins E and C related to lower risk of dementia and Alzheimer disease (AD) over 6 years of follow-up. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,395 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sex differences in major cardiovascular risk factors for incident (fatal or non-fatal) all-cause dementia were assessed in the UK Biobank. 4 key findings →
Participants: 502,226 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The heterogeneity of Alzheimer's disease contributes to the high failure rate of prior clinical trials. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 562 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Low hemoglobin and anemia are associated with cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,833 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) and their receptor (RAGE) are implicated in the pathophysiological processes of dementia and potentially underlie the association of diabetes with neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,021 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In addition, the underlying mechanism and driven mediators are largely unknown. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 154,549 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Knowledge gained from cohort studies has dramatically advanced both public and precision health. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 254 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive decline is a leading cause of disability and death in old age but its neurobiological bases are not well understood. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 130 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample included 47 100 Medicare beneficiaries (25 900 women [54.9%]; mean [SD] age, 72.2 [11.4] years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 47 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample consisted of 447 decedents (249 men [56%]; mean [SD] age, 80.3 [9.5] years; median year of death, 2011) spanning 24 years of donation. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 3363 adults were enrolled in SNAC-K (73.3% participation rate). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,363 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample included 4340 adults (mean [SD; range] age, 58.1 [1.1; 56-63] years; 2400 [55.3%] women); 630 (14.4%) were Black, 900 (20.7%) were Latinx, and 2610 (60.1%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,340 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 368 participants were included (median [IQR] age, 58 [50-65] years; 71% were female, 27% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 61% were White; median [IQR] BMI, 32.3 [28.5-37.1]). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 368 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 20 relevant studies involving 44,893 individuals were included in the analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 42,955 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
64/100
Our findings revealed distinct patterns of connectivity linked to normal ageing or Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 209 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 283,772 participants (mean [SD] age 64.62 [8.96] years; 56.7% women), 60.3% identified as non-Hispanic White and 13.3% as Hispanic/Latino. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 283,772 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 5390 participants (mean [SD] age, 76.9 [4.8] years; 2915 women [54.1%]), there were 2655 individuals (49.3%) with less than 12 years of education. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 1,078 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The pooled sample comprised 4657 participants (30% women) aged ≥ 60 years (mean age was 74 years at sleep assessment). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,374 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One million nine hundred twenty-five thousand, five hundred sixty-three individuals were included across the four databases with a median follow-up ranging from 5.6 to 8.4 years. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
AS01-adjuvanted shingles (herpes zoster) vaccination is associated with a lower risk of dementia, but the underlying mechanisms are unclear. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 436,788 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 228 392 participants from UKB (n = 137 374; mean [SD] age at baseline, 62.5 [4.1] years; 53.8% female) and AOU (n = 91 018; mean [SD] age at baseline, 66.9 [7.8] years; 57.1% female), those with a history of a clinical exposure at baseline had higher dementia incidence rates compared with those without such history. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 137 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the prospective GLORIA-AF registry of AF patients, the presence of clinical complexity was associated with lower odds of being prescribed with OAC (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44–0.57), higher OAC discontinuation, and with a higher risk of adverse events (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.43–1.86).[ 4 ] Indeed, “high clinical complexity” patients defined using latent class analysis constituted 6.6% of AF patients, and was associated with higher hazards of experiencing the primary composite outcome of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (HR 1.47, 95% 1.24–1.75).[ 5 ] Comorbidities and polypharmacy have an important influence on decision-making, by conditioning either lack of prescription of OAC in patients at risk or inappropriate dosing.[ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] Recognizing that AF management is more than simply OAC alone, and requires a holistic and integrated care approach, contemporary guidelines globally on AF management have promoted this concept, based on the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway, emphasizing Anticoagulation, Better symptom management with rate or rhythm control, and Comorbidity/lifestyle management.[ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] The ABC pathway is well supported by clinical trial and real-world evidence,[ 11 ] whereby adherence to the ABC pathway is associated with a reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and bleeding.[ 12 ] [ 13 ] Despite this, adherence to ABC-based management remains low, whereby a meta-analysis of 14 studies revealed that only 21% (95% CI 13–34%) of AF patients were managed in accordance with the ABC pathway.[ 12 ] This perhaps highlights a critical gap in the implementation of comprehensive evidence-based care strategies. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
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 →