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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A nurse-led, multidomain intervention did not result in a reduced incidence of all-cause dementia in an unselected population of older people. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 95 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 74 with 2 760 379 unique patients were also included in 5-year age band meta-analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 95 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This large meta-analysis pooled dozens of studies to estimate how many people under age 65 are living with dementia worldwide. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,760,379 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher Hcy levels, lower educational attainment, and decreased physical activity were particularly strong predictors of incident AD. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The relation between diabetes and major types of dementia is controversial. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
4024 articles were identified, and 74 were included in our narrative synthesis. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study cohorts had an average age of 75.0 years (95% CI, 74.8-75.2 years) in 2000 and 74.8 years (95% CI, 74.5-75.1 years) in 2012 (P = .24); 58.4% (95% CI, 57.3%-59.4%) of the 2000 cohort was female compared with 56.3% (95% CI, 55.5%-57.0%) of the 2012 cohort (P Conclusions and relevance The prevalence of dementia in the United States declined significantly between 2000 and 2012. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sensitivity analyses suggest that these estimates are robust to the change in response. 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,500 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is a severe neurodegenerative disorder and it can be categorized into several subtypes by different pathogenic causes. 3 key findings →
Participants: 10,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This large study followed over 274,000 members of a single California health system for 14 years and found striking differences in dementia rates by race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 274,283 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The incidence of dementia rises exponentially to the age of 90 years. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The rising prevalence of dementia will have an impact on acute hospitals. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 617 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, estimates indicate that FTD is comparable in frequency to dementia with Lewy bodies and occurs at higher rates than progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prediction of dementia in AD by SMI with subsequent amnestic MCI supports the model of a consecutive 3-stage clinical manifestation of AD from SMI via MCI to dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,415 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We included 18740 patients (10 205 women [54.5%]; mean [SD] age, 78.2[7.4] years), of which 4271 (22.8%) received at least one prescription for an antidepressant. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 18,740 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Comparing two nationally representative surveys of older Americans 12 years apart, researchers found the share of seniors with dementia fell substantially, from 11.6% in 2000 to 8.8% in 2012. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 21,057 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Researchers re-ran the same detailed dementia survey in the same three parts of England twenty years apart. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 15,431 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
By pooling two long-running community studies from the same region of Pennsylvania, researchers compared dementia rates across people born in different decades, from the 1900s to the 1940s. Each successively younger birth cohort had a substantially lower risk of developing dementia at a given age, with the youngest group's risk about a quarter of the oldest group's. This adds US evidence, independent of Framingham, that generational health improvements are lowering dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 3,010 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium in a patient with preexisting dementia is a common problem that may have serious complications and poor prognostic implications. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
SCD can precede both AD and non-AD dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,978 Evidence: low
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
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
63/100
CIND is commonly associated with functional disability and a need for institutional care. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,106 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Promoting active lifestyles in physically capable men could help late-life cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →