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
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Being married is associated with reduced risk of dementia than widowed and lifelong single people, who are also underdiagnosed in routine clinical practice. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Depression, anxiety, and apathy symptoms are highly prevalent across dementia stages. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,897 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia diagnosis recording in general hospitals is increasing but remains less likely in some groups. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 21,387 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The clinical value of current multifactorial algorithms for individualized assessment of dementia risk remains unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,865 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The pooled rate of undetected dementia was 61.7% (95% CI 55.0% to 68.0%). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
The number of people with dementia from minority ethnic (ME) groups in western countries is projected to rise dramatically, and they may be less able to access dementia services. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 2,090 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Main results We identified no studies which met the inclusion criteria. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Family carers' perceptions of BPSD as challenging are associated with a sense of a declining relationship, transgressions against social norms and underlying beliefs that people with dementia inevitably lose their 'personhood'. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
People from the black ethnic group had a higher incidence of dementia diagnosis and those from the Asian ethnic group had lower incidence compared with the white ethnic group. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,511,681 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Future work should incorporate clinicians to validate explanation methods and make conclusive inferences about dementia-related disease pathology. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Broad consensus emerged on the protective role against dementia of leisure activities. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 26 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There is evidence of geographical variation in rates of dementia in affluent countries at a variety of geographical scales. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
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
Additionally, the performance of each scale to predict dementia pathology both individually and in combination was evaluated using a support vector classifier, which was compared with expert scan assessment to estimate clinical value. 2 key findings →
Participants: 184 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prevalence of comorbid conditions in people with dementia is high. 3 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The overall PAF for the 14 modifiable risk factors was 59.5% (95% CI = 58.5-60.5). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,949 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There are significant barriers to help seeking for dementia in ME groups. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
57/100
Current dementia risk scores have had limited success in consistently identifying at-risk individuals across different ages and geographical locations. 4 key findings →
Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Data from 1,272,495 individuals, with the mean age at diagnosis ranging from 76.8 years (South Korea) to 82.9 years (Germany), show that the overall median length of survival following recorded diagnosis ranges from 2.4 years (New Zealand) to 7.9 years (South Korea). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,272,495 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
1,318 unique titles and abstracts were screened, of which 20 articles met inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 12,132 Evidence: high
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 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 →