31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Dementia prevalence rates reported for age 65+ years from a low of 6.3% in Japanese Americans, 12.9% in Caribbean Hispanic Americans, 12.2% in Guamanian Chamorro and ranged widely in African Americans from 7.2% to 20.9%. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,215 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
In this cohort and MR study of UK Biobank participants, cataracts were associated with increased risk of dementia, especially vascular dementia, and reduced total brain volumes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 304,953 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings highlight substantial disparities in the timeliness and comprehensiveness of dementia diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 993 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 283,772 participants (mean [SD] age 64.62 [8.96] years; 56.7% women), 60.3% identified as non-Hispanic White and 13.3% as Hispanic/Latino. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 283,772 Evidence: moderate
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
Co-pathology is a common feature of neurodegenerative diseases that complicates diagnosis, treatment and clinical management. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,187 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Out of 3127 abstracts, 291 were included in the review. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia rates varied over 60% between groups, providing a comprehensive benchmark for the NAPA goal of reducing disparities. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18,778 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A fully automated computational approach included classical statistical methods, support vector machine procedures, and machine learning techniques (random forest and sequential feature selection procedures). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,794 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Dementia is associated with adverse outcomes among ESRD patients. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 694 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Frontotemporal dementia is an umbrella clinical term that encompasses a group of neurodegenerative diseases characterised by progressive deficits in behaviour, executive function, or language. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study did not find evidence to suggest that the ratio of dementia risk across Black and White individuals changed in the US between 2000 and 2016. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From molecular mechanisms to global brain networks, atypical fluctuations are the hallmark of neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Participants: 300 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Unsupervised machine learning identifies high likelihood of dementia in population-based surveys, even without cognitive and behavioral measures and without the need of clinical diagnosis of dementia in a subsample of the population. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18,165 Evidence: low
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
Survival after dementia diagnosis differs by race/ethnicity, with shortest survival among whites and longest among Asian Americans. 3 key findings →
Participants: 23,032 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
The final Dementia Screening Indicator included age (1 point/year; ages, 65-79 years), less than 12 years of education (9 points), stroke (6 points), diabetes mellitus (3 points), body mass index less than 18.5 kg/m(2) (8 points), requiring assistance with money or medications (10 points), and depressive symptoms (6 points). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Diagnostic criteria for dementia have improved since the 1994 practice parameter. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Overall, 92% of patients had one or more dementia-related behaviors. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,776 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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