27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The current data provide strong support for continued investigations that examine the risk factors for and biomarkers of AD among diverse populations. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,705 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To analyze the longitudinal relationships between vision loss and the risk of dementia in the first 2 years, from 2 to 4 years and beyond 4 years after inclusion and to determine the roles of depressive symptomatology and engagement in cognitively stimulating activities in these associations. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Because the IQCODE provides information complementary to brief cognitive tests, harnessing them together can improve screening accuracy. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher CRI scores were associated with better cognition. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) has been proposed as a protective factor that modifies the effect of brain pathology on cognitive performance. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the low-education group, low literacy, long sleep duration(>8 h/day), and diabetes were negatively associated with CR, whereas cognitive and physical activity were positively associated with CR. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,247 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This research is an integrative review of scientific evidence differentiating between cognitive reserve (CR) and brain maintenance concepts. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study investigated differences in retrospective cognitive trajectories between amyloid and tau PET biomarker stratified groups in initially cognitively unimpaired participants sampled from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
aECAD was associated with significantly worse scores in processing speed (β = -0.19, p = 0.004) and executive function (β = -0.20, p = 0.009) domains after controlling for age, sex, education, race, and ethnicity. 3 key findings →
Participants: 182 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Significant interactions were found between APOE ε4 status and mindfulness and social engagement on cognitive reserve, indicating stronger associations for APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 157 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence to date supports the notion that higher levels of CR, as measured by proxy variables reflective of lifetime experiences, are associated with better cognitive performance, and with a reduced risk of incident mild cognitive impairment/dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We evaluate-also in a critical way-the methods commonly used to define and measure CR, including sociobehavioral proxies, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological and genetic measures. 5 key findings →
Participants: 842 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher levels of occupational complexity were associated with better baseline cognition. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,026 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Educational attainment and leisure activity engagement were individually associated with memory performance. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,864 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) was proposed to account for the discrepancy between levels of brain pathologic features or damage and clinical and cognitive function. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) was proposed to account for the discrepancy between levels of brain pathologic process or damage and clinical and cognitive function. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
While the field advances towards consensus definitions of existing concepts, the resistance vs resilience terminology may provide clarity in the communication of results in aging and dementia studies as well as provide a framework for the development of both hypotheses and study designs. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With aging, the hippocampal formation shows variable structural atrophy, which is associated with a decline in cognitive performance. 5 key findings →
Participants: 661 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Educational attainment is widely accepted as a cognitive reserve variable. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although a substantial body of research has identified brain MRI measures as important markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk, progression, and treatment response, most of that research has been performed in non-Hispanic white American populations, leading to questions about the utility of the brain MRI measures among individuals of other races or ethnicities. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Survivors of childhood cancer are prone to neurocognitive impairment and premature aging, raising concerns about early onset dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neither work complexity (p = 0.995) nor work duration (p = 0.701) showed a significant effect on the likelihood of presenting a lower cognitive profile or developing dementia (p = 0.385 and p = 0.096, for work complexity and work duration, respectively). 3 key findings →
Participants: 392 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The proportion between women and men was significantly different (68.7% [95% CI 63.9-73.4 vs 31.4%, 95% CI 26.6-36.0]). 5 key findings →
Participants: 381 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CR varied across five cognitive assessments and was greater in female participants, associated with longer survival, and weakly associated with educational attainment or APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →
Participants: 844 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We tested if cognitive and brain reserve and maintenance explain individual differences in episodic memory and other cognitive domains from late middle to early older adulthood. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,604 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
9 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 9. The same 9 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 →