The prevalence of dementia in older people in Seoul appears to be somewhat lower than in rural areas of Korea. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We estimated associations of educational attainment and Alzheimer disease genetic risk with treatment initiation and incident dementia and compared GLP-1 receptor agonist initiators with initiators of non-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor second-line therapies, with a separate sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor compa 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 14,364 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia and hearing loss are both highly prevalent conditions among older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It is estimated that for people aged 65 years and older, the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease was nearly double for women compared with men (Weinstein et al., 2012). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitively normal older adults are often regarded as a homogeneous population in preventive and disease-modifying clinical trials for dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,136 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
AbstractO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are increasingly used for type 2 diabetes. 5 key findings →
Participants: 6,328 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We examined whether their metabolomic profiles also differed and whether subtype-related metabolic patterns were associated with dementia, stroke, and all-cause mortality. 5 key findings →
Participants: 7,671 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Persistent racial disparities in dementia raise concerns regarding the validity and generalizability of existing prognostic models across diverse populations. 2 key findings →
Participants: 55,004 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BACKGROUNDPeople with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at higher risk of cerebral small vessel disease and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), potentially contributing to cognitive decline and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundPhenotypic age acceleration (PhenoAgeAccel), derived from PhenoAge, and MetaboHealth are composite exposures of biological ageing and metabolic health associated with dementia-related outcomes. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 272 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundFear of dementia (FoD) can shape psychological well-being and responses to perceived cognitive change. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It remains unclear whether the combined conditions confer an excess risk of hypoglycaemia-related hospitalisation beyond the risks associated with either condition alone. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 329,566 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a median follow-up of 13 years, 5,304 participants developed dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 151,832 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hearing loss is a potential risk factor for dementia, but public awareness of this link and its behavioral implications remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From across this tag
10 of the 1,130 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.
- Incidence of Dementia over Three Decades in the Framingham Heart Study
- Hearing aid effectiveness and probable dementia risk across 33 countries: A pooled analysis of seven cohorts
- Hearing Loss, Brain Structure, Cognition, and Dementia Risk in the Framingham Heart Study
- Features of the Physical and Social Neighborhood Environment and Neighborhood-Level Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia in South Carolina
- Midlife vascular risk factors and Alzheimer's disease in later life: longitudinal, population based study
- 15-year longitudinal study of blood pressure and dementia
- Fatty acid intake and the risk of dementia and cognitive decline: a review of clinical and epidemiological studies
- The association between neighborhood deprivation and DNA methylation in an autopsy cohort
- Incidence of dementia after age 90 years and association with APOE genotype, race, and sex in the USA: the LifeAfter90 prospective cohort study
- Association of zinc deficiency and risk of new-onset dementia: a retrospective cohort study
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 27,380 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.
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 27,380 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 →