Evidence from well-planned, representative epidemiological surveys is scarce in many regions. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
75/100
This study is based on 2 cross-sectional surveys of people aged 75 years or over conducted in central Stockholm: the Kungsholmen Project (KP) (1987-1989, n = 1,700) and the Swedish National study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) (2001-2004, n = 1,575). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,700 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Slow gait speed has been shown to predict incident dementia and cognitive decline in older individuals. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 57,456 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The last comparison of prevalence figures of dementia across European studies was 10 years ago. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,346 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Those individuals living alone, and those without any close social ties, both had an adjusted relative risk for developing dementia of 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.1 and 1.0-2.4, respectively). 2 key findings →
Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The concept of brain reserve refers to the ability to tolerate the age-related changes and the disease related pathology in the brain without developing clear clinical symptoms or signs. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia is an increasing focus for policymakers, civil organizations and multidisciplinary researchers. 5 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is receiving increasing attention from governments and politicians. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia, a major cause of disability and institutionalization in older people, poses a serious threat to public health and to the social and economic development of modern society. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The estimated total annual costs of dementia in China increased from 0.9 billion United States dollars (US$) in 1990 to US$ 47.2 billion in 2010 and were predicted to reach US$ 69.0 billion in 2020 and US$ 114.2 billion in 2030. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The authors examined the association of incident dementia and subtypes with age, sex, and geographic area in Europe. 5 key findings →
Participants: 835 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Current evidence suggests that vascular factors, such as midlife hypertension, diabetes, and cerebrovascular disease, contribute significantly to the development of dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and that active engagement in mental, physical, and social activities may postpone the onset of dementia by providing cognitive reserve. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
As the population ages, the number of people with dementia is expected to increase in the coming decades, with consequences at the societal and individual levels. 4 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
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. 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