ementia refers to a syndrome that is characterised by progressive deterioration of cognitive functions. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Screening for IC impairments identifies older adults at higher risk of incident frailty and incident IADL/ADL disability. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 759 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Short-term mortality is increased in patients newly diagnosed with probable AD. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 327 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total, 6,683 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 6,683 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fall rates were higher among PLWD compared to persons without dementia (45.5% vs. 30.9%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,581 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study confirmed a number of previously reported risk factors for AD, but provided little support for others. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
53/100
Our study confirms and extends findings from other countries, demonstrating cross-sectional associations between moderate and poor self-rated vision and dementia in England in all participants aged 50 and older and longitudinally over an 11-year period in those aged 50 to 69. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a sample of 2,398,405 patients receiving primary care, the target population relevant for dementia prevention measures in 2018 consisted of 191,883 patients with hypertension, 23,308 with obesity, 5,059 with hearing loss, 120,200 with diabetes and 43,233 with depression. 5 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The declining incidence of dementia in some countries, despite growing prevalence, is encouraging and urges further investigation. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
Alzheimer disease will affect increasing numbers of people as baby boomers (persons born between 1946 and 1964) age. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Our findings reveal marked geographic variation in dementia risk factors, highlighting the need for region-specific prevention strategies. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive staging and everyday function are not interchangeable. 1 key finding →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 202,508 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The increasing prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), especially Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, is a major public health concern in the Gulf countries (GCs) due to the rapid increase in life expectancy and population aging. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher UGS coverage was associated with a lower risk of incident AD among older adults in urban South Korea. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 95,822 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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. Show only studies that are free to read
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events