27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Initially, healthy older adults randomized to speed of processing cognitive training had a 29% reduction in their risk of dementia after 10 years of follow-up compared to the untreated control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,802 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Data collection and analysis We initially screened search results using a 'crowdsourcing' method in which members of Cochrane's citizen science platform identify RCTs. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 400 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The multidomain intervention showed no efficacy in preventing cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 531 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pooling data on more than 600,000 people, this meta-analysis found that people who reported feeling lonely had about a 30% higher risk of developing dementia overall, and even higher risk for vascular dementia specifically, even after accounting for depression and objective social isolation. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 608,561 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The first single-stage individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials provides evidence to support benefits of antihypertensive treatment in late-mid and later life to lower the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,008 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified 22 hospital-based and eight population-based eligible cohorts (7511 patients) described in 73 papers. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,511 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Main results We included two trials with 26,340 participants aged 40 to 82 years of whom 11,610 were aged 70 or older. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 26,340 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence from well-planned, representative epidemiological surveys is scarce in many regions. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A nurse-led, multidomain intervention did not result in a reduced incidence of all-cause dementia in an unselected population of older people. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia) Risk Score is a validated tool estimating dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 112 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite older racial and ethnic minorities (REMs) being more likely to develop dementia they are underrepresented in clinical trials focused on neurological disorders. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 100,748 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Twenty-three articles were included in the systematic review, and 21 in the meta-analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this sample of 101 219 patients, 52.7% were women and mean age was 62.6 years (SD, 9.3 years) as of November 1, 2016. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 101,219 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia represents a substantial financial burden on society, one that is similar to the financial burden of heart disease and cancer. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 856 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The detailed estimates in this study constitute the best current basis for policymaking, planning, and allocation of health and welfare resources in dementia care. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The included studies (n=15) assessed change in cognition in response to a multidomain lifestyle intervention. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 95 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 74 with 2 760 379 unique patients were also included in 5-year age band meta-analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 95 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Antipsychotic use compared with non-use in adults with dementia was associated with increased risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, heart failure, fracture, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, but not ventricular arrhythmia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 173,910 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An estimated 8.8 million Indians older than 60 years have dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,528 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a large dementia prevention trial with 6-year follow-up, dropout was associated with older age, poorer cognitive function, symptoms of depression, and disability at baseline. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,994 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Main results Seventeen trials with 1067 participants met the inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,067 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia prevalence rates reported for age 65+ years from a low of 6.3% in Japanese Americans, 12.9% in Caribbean Hispanic Americans, 12.2% in Guamanian Chamorro and ranged widely in African Americans from 7.2% to 20.9%. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,215 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study is based on 2 cross-sectional surveys of people aged 75 years or over conducted in central Stockholm: the Kungsholmen Project (KP) (1987-1989, n = 1,700) and the Swedish National study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) (2001-2004, n = 1,575). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,700 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This large meta-analysis pooled dozens of studies to estimate how many people under age 65 are living with dementia worldwide. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,760,379 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neurotropic herpesviruses may be implicated in the development of dementia 1-5 . 1 key finding →
Design: cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →