27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The ability of the model to discriminate incident cases of dementia implies that it can be a worthwhile tool to screen patients for trial recruitment and patient management. 1 key finding →
Participants: 121,907 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Preliminary evidence was found to support communication interventions for people with moderate-severe dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The prevalence of Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD) increases with advancing age, but less so after age 90 years. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Physical performance tests are important for assessing the effect of physical activity interventions in older people with dementia, but their psychometric properties have not been systematically established within this specific population. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 58 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 21-point Brain Care Score (BCS) was developed through a modified Delphi process in partnership with practitioners and patients to promote behavior changes and lifestyle choices in order to sustainably reduce the risk of dementia and stroke. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 60 000 869 beneficiaries included (50 853 806 aged 65 years or older [84.8%]; 32 567 891 female [54.3%]; 5 555 571 Hispanic [9.3%]; 6 318 194 non-Hispanic Black [10.5%]; 44 384 980 non-Hispanic White [74.0%]), there were 4 312 496 (7.2%) with highly likely ADRD, 1 124 080 (1.9%) with likely ADRD, and 2 572 176 (4.3%) with possible ADRD, totaling more than 8.0 million with diagnostic evidence of at least possible ADRD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Analysis included a total of 121 145 patients in non-D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 173 662 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 81.8 [7.8] years; 122 565 female [70.6%]; 6078 Asian [3.5%], 34 150 Black [19.7%], 37 580 Hispanic [21.6%], 95 854 White [55.2%]) and 78 166 patients in D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 122 681 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [8.0] years; 87 329 female [71.2%]; 10 530 Asian [8.6%], 33 280 Black [27.1%], 43 294 Hispanic [35.3%], 35 577 White [29.0%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 121 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
32.5% of elderly with dementia and 16.9% without were treated with an opioid in 2015. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 36,014 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirteen percent of care recipients had at least 1 ACSH. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Time is an under-recognised social determinant of brain health, and is potentially as important as education or income for dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Limited studies focusing on the intersectional determinants of preferences of ethnic minority groups or post-migrants with dementia were found. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The cultural tailoring of interventions is promising to address disparities in dementia care and interventions in underserved communities. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This Viewpoint discusses age-specific dementia prevalence rates, their decline during 40 years, and the subsequent effect on dementia incidence. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
9118 references were identified, and 103 articles (from 78 studies) published between 1992 and 2024 were included. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Both ML short forms showed high internal consistency (α = 0.96 for ML-WHODAS-16 and 0.93 for ML-WHODAS-10) and excellent concurrent validity with the full WHODAS-32 (r = 0.98 for both). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 31,952 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The best-performing model achieved an area under the curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-0.87), with sensitivity of 73.3% (95% CI: 72.3-74.2) and specificity of 87.5% (95% CI: 86.7-88.2). 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 8,195 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant hazard ratios (HRs) for dementia incidence were found using the MMSE cutoff between 23 and 24 point (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.13-3.27) and the J-Cog cutoff between 43 and 44 points (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.50-3.93). 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This multimodal intervention program demonstrated no effectiveness in mitigating cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The ageing of many populations in recent years has directed increasing attention to the social, medical and biological problems of senescence. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The diagnosis of dementia, especially in the most advanced stages, represents an important risk factor for mortality in COVID-19 patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 627 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the absence of other prior neurologic insult, both AD and other dementias increase the risk of generalized- and partial-onset unprovoked seizures. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Using worldwide health data, researchers project that the number of people living with dementia will nearly triple by 2050, from about 57 million in 2019 to about 153 million. 4 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prevention of fall-related injuries in patients with Alzheimer-type dementia (ATD) is hampered by an incomplete understanding of their causes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Reducing heavy alcohol use may be an effective dementia prevention strategy. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia, a major cause of disability and institutionalization in older people, poses a serious threat to public health and to the social and economic development of modern society. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
10 of the 1,233 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →