31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A total of 5971 titles were reviewed and 60 studies were included in the analysis, 36 RCTs and 24 observational studies. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 5,971 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Excluding participants with prevalent dementia, n = 1,161 individuals were included. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,161 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 952 participants (mean age at first neuropsychological assessment = 69±8 years, 62% women, 17% Black, 13% white, 68% Hispanic), 24% developed MCI/dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 952 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease and related dementias is a major public health burden-compounding over upcoming years due to longevity. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30,097 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As shown in Table 2, attrition in LASA is associated with predictors and outcomes of interest to our research. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,805 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most participants self-reported good social health (92%) with very few socially isolated (2%), with low social support (2%) or lonely (5%). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caregivers showed a greater discrepancy in sleep duration than did noncaregivers (-0.46 hour vs 0.22 hour, respectively; P = .003). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 122 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During the follow-up, 428 developed dementia; 221 had AD, 157 had VaD, and 50 had dementia of other subtypes. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From March 2019 to March 2020, 264 patients were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 264 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
80% of participants were lonely. Loneliness was associated with having contacts in less social network domains, in women but not in men. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 181 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Incident caregivers reported lower satisfaction with social activities and greater decline in social network size than controls. 4 key findings →
Participants: 479 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings confirm that the non-cognitive features of Alzheimer's disease are stressful for carers and indicate specific relationships between mood-related and behavioural signs of depression, walking and sleep disruptions and hallucinations in patients and adverse carer outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We observed that greater social isolation was related to increased anxiety in people with cognitive impairment (coefficients = 0.7242, t = 2.51, p = 0.015), adjusting for severity of cognitive impairment, race, pain, depression, activities of daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,343 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The predictors of the Social Loneliness factors were as follows; 1) perceived social support (R2 = 0.33): Neuroticism (β= 0.353), depression (β= 0.205), and perceived health (β= 0.133); 2) social participation (R2 = 0.24): Conscientiousness (β= -0.344) and Extraversion (β= -0.263); 3) use of communication technologies (R2 = 0.44): age (β= 0.409), type of cohabitation (β= 0.331), cognitive reserve (β= -0.303), and Conscientiousness (β= -0.247); all p < 0.05. 3 key findings →
Participants: 105 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of the respondents, 60/93 (65%) were women. 5 key findings →
Participants: 93 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The revised UCLA loneliness scale score was not significantly associated with age, years of education, mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, gender, living status, visual impairment, hearing impairment, and marital status. 5 key findings →
Participants: 152 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individual's loneliness was stable when their spouse's cognition remained normal, but increased with the spouse's TCIND. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,206 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The PWD and ICG interviews provided insight into the positive impacts of VP, challenges of VP, program barriers, program facilitating factors, and suggestions for future improvement for the OSCC55 + VPs. 4 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To determine the impact of dementia on the family, we interviewed the primary care givers of 55 patients suffering from an irreversible dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 55 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The friendship subset of social networks was significantly related to cognition (independent of age, gender, depression, loneliness, and family subset of social network): B = 0.284, P = 0.01. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Groups of spouse (N = 285) and adult child (N = 244) caregivers of elderly parents suffering from Alzheimer's disease were interviewed regarding their caregiving behaviors, evaluations of caregiving, and general psychological well-being. 1 key finding →
Participants: 285 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In older men, pathways occurred from chronic stress to distress to the metabolic syndrome, which in turn predicted CHD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 47 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Social connectedness is important for maintaining cognitive function and cognitive health in older age. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A stress and coping model was used to study predictors of individual differences in caregiver adaptation. 2 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia, observed at a higher incidence in women compared with men. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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 31,380 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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