OHL was associated with greater risk of incident dementia in a multiethnic cohort. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,881 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The mean age ± standard deviation was 64.6 ± 3.5 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 98 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 1,310 older adults who reported hearing loss (25% 80-84 years, 51% women, 74% White), 22% with dementia and 57% baseline hearing aid use. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prevalence of hearing impairment and dementia increases with age but the nature of their association remains unclear. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The combined hearing impairment and isolation with lack of conversation (hazard ratio: 1.69, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-2.61) and non-hearing impairment and isolation with lack of conversation (hazard ratio: 1.60, 95% confidence: 1.07-2.39) were associated with the development of dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,745 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Poor speech-in-noise hearing (>-5.5-dB speech reception threshold; prevalence 14%) was associated with lower cognitive scores (ß = -1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.54 to -1.03). 5 key findings →
Participants: 80,074 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this sample, 12.7% of clients were admitted to LTC, with a mean time to admission of 49.6 months (SE = 0.20). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean age was 58.4 years (SD = 6.2). A 20-dB (equivalent to a one-category worsening) increase in HL was associated with a -1.53 (95% CI, -2.11, -0.94) raw score point difference in the DSST, adjusting for demographics, hearing aid use, and cardiovascular disease. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,277 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
61/100
Among 14,186 participants, we identified 1,194 (8.4%) who developed AD over a median follow-up period of 22.6 months. 5 key findings →
Participants: 14,186 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Investigators/staff from 85 (of 192 cohorts) responded; 6 (7%) excluded participants with severe impairment; 80 (94%) measured hearing and/or vision impairment, while 5 (6%) measured neither. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sensory impairments are associated with greater risk of dementia in Chinese older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 250,752 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study aims to determine whether single and dual sensory impairment (hearing and/or vision) are independently associated with cognitive decline among older adults and to describe cognitive trajectories according to their impairment pattern. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hearing impairment has been hypothesized as contributing to symptoms of dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hearing loss is independently associated with prevalent dementia and incident MCI or dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,515 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundHearing loss is one of the most prominent modifiable risk factors for dementia, accounting for one of the largest population-attributable risk among midlife exposures according to the Lancet Commission on Dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 373 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 113,511 participants (mean age: 56.8 ± 8.09 years, female: 54.4%), a total number of 1,135 (1.00%) cases of incident dementia were identified during a median follow up period of 11.1 years [interquartile range (IQR): 10.9-11.4 years]. 4 key findings →
Participants: 500,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the 130 articles included in the review, 103 were cognitive training interventions (79%) and 27 were multimodal interventions (21%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 5,146 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,146 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
DSI was significantly associated with higher risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.25-2.76) and Alzheimer's disease (HR = 2.12; 95% CI = 1.34-3.36). 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,051 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There has been increasing attention to the role of hearing loss as a potentially modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mean age ± standard deviation was 64.3 ± 3.5 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants with prevalent and incident HL showed a faster decline in verbal memory, information processing speed, and executive function than participants without HL. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,823 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dual impairment, but not single impairment in hearing and vision was associated with a higher risk of dementia (HR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.27). 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,579 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We conducted a case-control study in 100 cases who had Alzheimer's-type dementia and 100 age-, sex-, and education-matched, nondemented controls to evaluate the hypothesis that hearing impairment contributes to cognitive dysfunction in older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The peripheral hearing alterations and central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) associated with age-related hearing loss (ARHL), may impact cognitive disorders in older age. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
7 of the 118 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 7. The same 7 appear here every time.
- Taste and smell losses in normal aging and disease
- Enablers and Barriers to Hearing aid Use in People Living With Dementia
- Sensory Loss and Risk of Dementia
- Hearing loss and Alzheimer's disease: A Review
- Apolipoprotein E Allele and Hearing Thresholds in Older Adults
- Introduction to Supplement Issue: Sensory loss in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias
- The Health and Well-Being of Older Adults with Dual Sensory Impairment (DSI) in Four Countries
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 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 →