27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The measured benefits in clinical trials for the treatment of mixed dementia are best described as statistically significant differences in cognitive test scores and clinician and caregiver impressions of change. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our results support the notion that antihypertensive treatment has beneficial effects on cognitive decline and prevention of dementia, and indicate that these effects may differ between drug classes with ARBs possibly being the most effective. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In total, 1,234 articles were identified from the search; 21 articles met inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Longitudinal clinical-pathological studies have increasingly recognized the importance of mixed pathologies (the coexistence of one or more neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular disease pathologies) as important factors in the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other forms of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The burden of AD dementia is substantial. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high
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
Evidence to date suggest there are ethnic differences in risk of dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 12 Evidence: high
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
These findings suggest that machine learning algorithms could accurately predict incident dementia within 2 years in patients receiving care at memory clinics using only 6 variables. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 307 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prospective, population-based studies that recruit participants in mid-life are valuable resources for dementia research. 1 key finding →
Participants: 500,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A greater sense of meaning and purpose in life is associated with lower dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 153,445 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Epidemiological evidence regarding the association between atrial fibrillation (AF) onset age and risk of incident dementia remains unexplored. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 746 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We included 18740 patients (10 205 women [54.5%]; mean [SD] age, 78.2[7.4] years), of which 4271 (22.8%) received at least one prescription for an antidepressant. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 18,740 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Pre-existing dementia is not independently associated with mortality, disability, or institutionalization after ischemic stroke. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 877 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Comparing two nationally representative surveys of older Americans 12 years apart, researchers found the share of seniors with dementia fell substantially, from 11.6% in 2000 to 8.8% in 2012. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 21,057 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Researchers re-ran the same detailed dementia survey in the same three parts of England twenty years apart. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 15,431 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
By pooling two long-running community studies from the same region of Pennsylvania, researchers compared dementia rates across people born in different decades, from the 1900s to the 1940s. Each successively younger birth cohort had a substantially lower risk of developing dementia at a given age, with the youngest group's risk about a quarter of the oldest group's. This adds US evidence, independent of Framingham, that generational health improvements are lowering dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 3,010 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this cohort and MR study of UK Biobank participants, cataracts were associated with increased risk of dementia, especially vascular dementia, and reduced total brain volumes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 304,953 Evidence: moderate
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
The successful interventions identified included approximately nine to 12 sessions tailored to the needs of the person with dementia and the caregiver and were delivered individually in the home using multiple components over 3-6 months with periodic follow-up. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Population-based estimates for the epidemiology of FTD varied widely in the included studies. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium in a patient with preexisting dementia is a common problem that may have serious complications and poor prognostic implications. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Prospective cohort study with 5 years of follow-up. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 154 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →