27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We found no evidence to suggest that the current assumption of constant age-specific prevalence of dementia over time is ill-founded. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increasing crystallised intelligence and fruit and vegetable consumption and eliminating depression and diabetes are likely to have the biggest impact on reducing the incidence of dementia, outweighing even the effect of removing the principal known genetic risk factor. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,433 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Besides the MMSE, there are many other tests with comparable diagnostic performance for detecting dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 102 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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
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
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
Dementia is a severe neurodegenerative disorder and it can be categorized into several subtypes by different pathogenic causes. 3 key findings →
Participants: 10,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
We found no significant association for exposure to nitrogen oxides (five studies, n=241 409, pooled adjusted HR per 10 μg/m 3 increase, 1·05 [0·97-1·13]; I 2 =44%), PM 10 (four studies, n=246 440, pooled adjusted HR per 15 μg/m 3 increase, 1·52 [0·80-2·87]; I 2 =82%), or annual ozone (four studies, n=419 972, pooled adjusted HR per 45 μg/m 3 increase, 0·82 [0·35-1·92]; I 2 =69%), with moderate to considerable heterogeneity between studies in these pooled analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 24,030,527 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The management of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, autonomic symptoms and depression, and the encouragement of physical activity may provide the core elements for the most fruitful strategy to reduce falls in people with dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 179 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Classification of evidence This study provides Class II evidence that specific dual-task training improves dual-task performance during walking under complex S3 conditions in geriatric patients with mild to moderate dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA) may help in identifying and monitoring risk status in dementia-prevention programmes, by targeting modifiable, lifestyle-related risk factors. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 949 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Ageing of the population, together with population growth, has brought along an ample increase in the number of older individuals living with dementia and disabilities. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When zero inflation was taken into account, between-site differences in disability scores were largely attributable to compositional differences in health and sociodemographic characteristics. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Random-effects models revealed small but statistically significant effects with better psychological well-being in African American caregivers compared with white caregivers in both population-based (d = -0.22) and convenience sample studies (d = -0.21). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our prediction model was internally evaluated based on five-fold cross-validation on discrimination and calibration, and it was further compared with existing prediction scales. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,416 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
Atypical antipsychotics are associated with an increased risk of stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This large study followed over 274,000 members of a single California health system for 14 years and found striking differences in dementia rates by race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 274,283 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We were unable to detect a difference in HRQOL for screening for ADRD among older adults. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,008 Evidence: high
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 prevalence of DSM-IV dementia varied widely, from 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-0.5) in rural India to 6.3% (5.0-7.7) in Cuba. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The strength of the reported associations, the consistency across studies and the suggestion of a dose response supports a need to keep modifiable risk factor exposure to a minimum and to avoid exposure to additional modifiable risks. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These analyses give a population based estimated median survival for incident dementia of 4.5 years. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 438 Evidence: moderate
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →