27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
As the literature related to cognitive reserve (CR) in individuals with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is only emerging, a clear consensus on the relationship among CR proxies, brain status, and clinical performance has not been reached. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,423 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
How and when education improves cognitive capacity is an issue of profound societal importance. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,009 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on this meta-analytic survey of the literature, increased amyloid burden has small but nontrivial associations with specific domains of cognitive performance in individuals who are currently cognitively normal. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 7,140 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with cognitive profiles consistent with probable executive MCI were identified using simple assessments of global cognition, memory and executive functions in a community-dwelling older population. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 161 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Bilingualism has been linked to improved executive function and delayed onset of dementia, but it is unknown whether similar benefits can be obtained later in life through deliberate intervention. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 76 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adding MDLC to p-tau217 significantly explained longitudinal cognitive trajectory beyond p-tau217 alone. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 183 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Baseline subjective cognitive decline and low cognitive reserve significantly increased the risk of dementia, after 2 years of follow-up. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,099 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Addition of CAT to the PACC provides unique information about early cognitive decline not currently captured by the episodic memory, executive function, and global cognition components and may therefore improve detection of early Aβ-related cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-one reviews were identified, sixteen of which were systematic reviews, and fifteen were meta-analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
IICV was associated with concurrent/baseline performance on several outcomes but did not modify associations between age and cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 235 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A one standard deviation increase in AD-PGS was associated with an accelerated time to dementia diagnosis by 4.8 months. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 7,039 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Stratification by self-reported recovery revealed that deficits were only detectable in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals who did not feel recovered from COVID-19, whereas individuals who reported full recovery showed no deficits. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,737 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Trajectories of systolic BP were separated markedly around 25 to 45 years of age, with the group below the median of cognition score having higher levels of systolic BP than the group above the median. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 912 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence suggests that bilingualism may contribute to neuroplasticity and cognitive reserve, allowing individuals to resist cognitive decline associated with Alzheimer's disease progression, although the idea remains controversial. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study replicated research showing that education was positively associated with cognition at baseline. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 28,417 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a major contributor to dependence and disability in older people, with aging societies characterized by growing numbers of people living with the condition. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Early age at surgical menopause was associated with cognitive decline and AD neuropathology. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,884 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A MoCA cutoff score of 23, rather than the initially recommended score of 26, lowers the false positive rate and shows overall better diagnostic accuracy. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Daily driving is a multi-faceted, real-world, behavioral measure of cognitive functioning requiring multiple cognitive domains working synergistically to complete this instrumental activity of daily living. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 186 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Social participation may theoretically decrease risk for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 32,715 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Social determinants of health, including neighborhood factors, play a key role in the health of diverse older adults. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 452 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the cohort of 7180 older adults (median age, 74 years [range, 65-102 years]; 4729 women [65.9%]), 1036 were African American or Black (14.4%), 21 were American Indian or Alaska Native (0.3%), 143 were Asian (2.0%), 332 were Hispanic (4.6%), and 5648 were non-Hispanic White (78.7%); the median educational level was 16.0 years (range, 1.0-29.0 years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ϵ4 prevalence in Black (46%) and White participants (46%) was almost double that of Latino participants (24%). ϵ4 was associated with poorer baseline episodic memory only in White participants (p = .001), but had a moderately strong association with episodic memory change across all racial/ethnic groups (Blacks= -.061 SD/year, Latinos = -.055,Whites= -.055). ϵ4 association with semantic memory change was strongest in White participants (-.071), intermediate in Latino participants (-.041), and weakest in Black participants (-.022). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 297 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Difficulties in the performance of everyday activities were found more frequently in non-demented subjects with mild cognitive deficits than in the general population. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 368 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive impairment associated with aging is a serious and growing public health problem. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
10 of the 208 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 27,380 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 →