The incidence of dementia rises exponentially to the age of 90 years. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
Targeted clinical application of specific technologies is poised to revolutionize precision care in dementia as these technologies may be used both by patients and caregivers, and at a systems level to provide safe and effective care. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,337 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
68/100
Studying causal exposure effects on dementia is challenging when death is a competing event. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The global mortality of ADRD among adults aged ≥65 years increased by 115%, from 6.5 (95% UI 1.5-18) per 100,000 population in 1991 to 14 (95% UI 3.5-37) per 100,000 population in 2021, with an Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) of 1.10% (95%CI 0.45%-1.76%). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, estimates indicate that FTD is comparable in frequency to dementia with Lewy bodies and occurs at higher rates than progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
67/100
Dementia is a growing public health problem for which early detection may be beneficial. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive impairment without dementia is more prevalent in the United States than dementia, and its subtypes vary in prevalence and outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Several results seemed to challenge conventional assumptions of what precipitates NHA among persons with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
When diagnosed, non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics may have more advanced dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,966 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We aimed to inform planning by assessing intrinsic capacity prevalence, by characterising the target group, and by validating the general approach-testing hypotheses that DIC was consistently associated with higher risks of incident dependence and death. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 17,031 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 2320 unique papers was found; the full text of 87 was reviewed. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 10,500 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prediction of dementia in AD by SMI with subsequent amnestic MCI supports the model of a consecutive 3-stage clinical manifestation of AD from SMI via MCI to dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,415 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Data collected from clinical trials and cohort studies, such as dementia studies, are often high-dimensional, censored, heterogeneous and contain missing information, presenting challenges to traditional statistical analysis. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,037 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Five databases were searched for English-language studies up to August 2010, and included all study designs with a comparative group. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To systematically review the literature for dementia prediction models for use in the general population and externally validate their performance in a head-to-head comparison. 4 key findings →
Participants: 867 Evidence: low
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
We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This expert commission synthesized decades of population-level (observational) research to estimate how much dementia risk could theoretically be reduced by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors across life, from childhood education to late-life social isolation. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Using a nationally representative survey of older Americans with in-home cognitive testing, researchers estimated that dementia cost the US between $157 billion and $215 billion in 2010, depending on how unpaid family caregiving time is valued. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 856 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings indicate that AWV recipients had a timelier first MCI diagnosis than those who did not receive an AWV, but first ADRD diagnosis differed little. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 549,516 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive reserve (CR) may reduce the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
New PRSs for dementia significantly improve risk-prediction performance, but still account for less risk than APOE genotype overall. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 12,031 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From across this tag
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.
- Burden of illness among patients with dementia-related psychosis
- The Clock Drawing Test: utility for dementia detection in multiethnic elders
- [P4–555]: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META‐ANALYSIS OF THE PREVALENCE OF DEMENTIA IN MAINLAND CHINA, HONG KONG AND TAIWAN: 2017 UPDATE
- Sentence processing in frontotemporal dementia
- Beyond black‐box AI: Interpretable hybrid systems for dementia care
- Data mining methods in the prediction of Dementia: A real-data comparison of the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of linear discriminant analysis, logistic regression, neural networks, support vector machines, classification trees and random forests
- Using data linkage for national surveillance of clinical quality indicators for dementia care among Australian aged care users
- Machine learning approaches to diagnosis and laterality effects in semantic dementia discourse
- Instrumental activities of daily living as a screening tool for cognitive impairment and dementia in elderly community dwellers
- Rural‐urban disparities in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia: The role of state‐level nurse practitioner policies
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 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.
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 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 →