28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In India, increasing lifespan and decreasing fertility rates have resulted in a growing number of older persons. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Survey-based cognitive tests and claims-based dementia diagnosis yielded equal prevalence estimates, yet only half were identified by both measures. 4 key findings →
Participants: 10,450 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
Numerous tools for assessment of cognitive impairment in low-literacy settings have been developed, and tools developed for use in high-income countries have also been validated in low-literacy settings. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Declines in heart disease and stroke mortality rates are conventionally attributed to reductions in cigarette smoking, recognition and treatment of hypertension and diabetes, effective medications to improve serum lipid levels and to reduce clot formation, and general lifestyle improvements. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prevalence of Alzheimer disease in older Japanese-American men in Hawaii appears to be higher than in Japan but similar to European-ancestry populations. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Both MSS and Activity sessions appear to be effective and appropriate therapies for people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Progression of Alzheimer dementia (AD) is highly variable. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
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
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
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
The study encompassed 479 723 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.1] years; 260 730 females [54.4%]), including 271 690 in the YOD analyses and 334 939 in the LOD analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 723 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DSD is linked to adverse outcomes, compared to dementia alone, like longer hospitalisation [3], mortality [3, 4], functional decline [3] and need for residential care [3]. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 64 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The weighted prevalence of dementia based on the 10/66 Diagnostic Research Group (DRG) criteria was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-10.7) in the WiSE 2023 study compared to 10% in the WiSE 2013 study (95% CI: 8.7-11.5). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,010 Evidence: low
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
Light Gradient-boosting Machine (LightGBM) achieved the highest performance in identifying agitation over an 8-day period with a sensitivity of 71.32% ± 7.38 and specificity of 75.28% ± 7.38. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 63 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
The huge costs of dementia worldwide place enormous strains on care systems and families alike.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients with dementia with BD had a higher prevalence of comorbidities, greater use of comedications, and greater healthcare utilization and costs than patients with dementia without BD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 103,402 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Growing evidence suggests that peripheral diseases serve as risk factors for dementia, but the population-level burden of dementia associated with various peripheral diseases has remained unknown. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study estimated the utilization and lifetime costs of formal care for AD dementia using longitudinal register data. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 20,366 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vascular cognitive impairment defines alterations in cognition, ranging from subtle deficits to full-blown dementia, attributable to cerebrovascular causes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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
10 of the 1,234 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 (3.7% 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 →