32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In the cohort analyses, 891 incident dementia cases were identified over 166,762 person-years. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 207,981 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At 48 months, group differences between clinical progressors and non-progressors were significant for self (2.13, SE=0.45, P Conclusions and relevance Demonstrating long-term clinical benefit will be critical for the success of recently launched secondary prevention trials. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 468 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Both early life and adult socioeconomic status (SES) predict late-life level of memory; however, evidence is mixed on the relationship between SES and rate of memory decline. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 10,781 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.04). Replacing 1 serving per day of nuts and legumes for processed red meat was associated with a 19% lower risk of dementia (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.86), 1.37 fewer years of cognitive aging (95% CI -2.49 to -0.25), and a 21% lower risk of SCD (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Smoking cessation was associated with a sustained lower dementia risk and slower cognitive decline, comparable to never smokers and those without short-term risk increase. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 32,802 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Older, healthy women with decreased circadian activity rhythm amplitude and robustness, and delayed rhythms have increased odds of developing dementia and MCI. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cross-sectional epidemiological and clinical research suggests that lower cardiac index is associated with abnormal brain aging, including smaller brain volumes, increased white matter hyperintensities, and worse cognitive performances. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 184 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sample 1 included 1656 participants (mean [range] age, 58.1 [29.7-85.6] years; 903 female [54.5%]), and sample 2 included 935 participants (mean [range] age, 67.6 [60.0-85.6] years; 518 female [55.4%]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,656 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a mean follow-up of 7.9 years, 694 incident dementia cases occurred. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 82,391 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Growing evidence suggests that fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) likely increases the risks of dementia, yet little is known about the relative contributions of different constituents. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Rotterdam Study previously found that higher dietary intakes of vitamins E and C related to lower risk of dementia and Alzheimer disease (AD) over 6 years of follow-up. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,395 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The pooled sample comprised 4657 participants (30% women) aged ≥ 60 years (mean age was 74 years at sleep assessment). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,374 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, cumulative incidence was uniformly higher in NACC than in the population-based cohorts. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,073 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The exact etiology of dementia is still unclear, but both genetic and lifestyle factors are thought to be key drivers of this complex disease. 1 key finding →
Participants: 6,352 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Social determinants of health (SDHs) are the primary drivers of preventable health inequities, and the associations between SDHs and health outcomes among individuals with type 2 diabetes remain unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The association between vascular risk factors and dementia varies with age, making generalizability of dementia risk prediction rules to individuals of different ages challenging. 4 key findings →
Participants: 4,899 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample included 3 329 977 beneficiaries (2 126 290 [63.9%] female, 33 887 [1.0%] Asian, 354 771 [10.7%] Black, 61 515 [1.8%] Hispanic, 2 831 391 [85.0%] White, and 891 815 [26.8%] dual eligible for Medicaid). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest a potential vasculoprotective role of vitamin D. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 318 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We used Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regressions to assess whether circadian disturbances predict an increased risk of incident Alzheimer's dementia and conversion of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We analyzed data from 11,709 participants without a history of coronary heart disease or stroke who attended the baseline examination (1987-1989) of the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. 4 key findings →
Participants: 11,709 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium is a distressing neurocognitive disorder recently linked to sleep disturbances. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 818 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The objective of this study was to investigate whether increased NLR in older adults is independently associated with the risk of subsequent dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,648 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 13 592 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.34 [9.39] years; 7175 [52.8%] female), 6525 (48.0%) experienced possible childhood loneliness, and 565 (4.2%) reported childhood loneliness. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 592 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mean age was 73.5 years and mean HbA1c was 6.8%. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The influence of this genetic risk may begin in early life and make an individual more susceptible to cognitive impairment in late life. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events
Last updated