An estimated 8.8 million Indians older than 60 years have dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,528 Evidence: moderate
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.
These findings suggest medication-specific educational mailings targeting patients with AD or ADRD and their clinicians are not effective in reducing the use of high-risk medications. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 787 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Brain clocks, which quantify discrepancies between brain age and chronological age, hold promise for understanding brain health and disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 5,306 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Non-Hispanic white and NHB Health and Retirement Study (HRS) participants provided genetic information and either a composite memory score (n = 10,401) or a dementia probability score (n = 7690). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,401 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
PM 2.5 might be a risk factor for dementia, as well as nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen oxide, although with more limited data. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Targeted clinical application of specific technologies is poised to revolutionize precision care in dementia as these technologies may be used both by patients and caregivers, and at a systems level to provide safe and effective care. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,337 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
68/100
Studying causal exposure effects on dementia is challenging when death is a competing event. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To systematically review the literature for dementia prediction models for use in the general population and externally validate their performance in a head-to-head comparison. 4 key findings →
Participants: 867 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 testing conditions and the accessibility of telemedicine yield inconclusive results as to whether telemedicine can improve the management of dementia in geriatric individuals. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Poststroke cognitive impairment and dementia (PSCID) is a major source of morbidity and mortality after stroke worldwide. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Reducing the risk of dementia can halt the worldwide increase of affected people. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At the First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia in March, 2015, 160 delegates, including representatives from 80 WHO Member States and four UN agencies, agreed on a call for action to reduce the global burden of dementia by fostering a collective effort to advance research. 5 key findings →
Participants: 201 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
61/100
The results underscore the impact of education on brain structure and function in LA, highlighting the importance of incorporating educational factors into diagnosing, care, and prevention, and emphasizing the need for global diversity in research. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,412 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As randomised trials are not always feasible or practical, observational studies remain crucial for addressing many causal questions in the dementia prevention field. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Beneficiaries had an average age of 75.3 years and were predominately female (59%) and non-Hispanic whites (93%). 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,002 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A multidimensional social exposome (MSE)-the combined lifespan measures of education, food insecurity, financial status, access to healthcare, childhood experiences, and more-may shape dementia risk and brain health over the lifespan, particularly in underserved regions like Latin America. 1 key finding →
Participants: 2,211 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium and dementia are two frequent causes of cognitive impairment among older adults and have a distinct, complex and interconnected relationship. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
Non-specific codes were most common. Alzheimer's and vascular dementia codes showed high regional variability. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,016 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Less EQ and YoE were associated with brain alterations across groups. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 7,533 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Identification of individuals at high risk of dementia is essential for development of prevention strategies, but reliable tools are lacking for risk stratification in the population. 4 key findings →
Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium and dementia are two of the most common causes of cognitive impairment in older populations, yet their interrelation remains poorly understood. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Across Latin American and Caribbean countries (LACs), the fight against dementia faces pressing challenges, such as heterogeneity, diversity, political instability, and socioeconomic disparities. 5 key findings →
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