27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Building on earlier evidence showing a beneficial effect of bilingualism on children's cognitive development, we review recent studies using both behavioral and neuroimaging methods to examine the effects of bilingualism on cognition in adulthood and explore possible mechanisms for these effects. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive reserve explains why those with higher IQ, education, occupational attainment, or participation in leisure activities evidence less severe clinical or cognitive changes in the presence of age-related or Alzheimer's disease pathology. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
High levels of education, occupational complexity, and/or premorbid intelligence are associated with lower levels of cognitive impairment than would be expected from a given brain pathology. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Because the field of bilingualism is still relatively new, studies in the linguistics, psycholinguistics, language development and neurolinguistics of bilingualism have often produced conflicting results. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The relation between bilingualism and cognition is informative about the connection between language and mind. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Indo‐US Cross‐National Dementia Epidemiology Study seeks to compare two rural populations, in the US and India: the Monongahela Valley, a rural community of relatively low socioeconomic status in southwestern Pennsylvania (USA), and Ballabgarh, a rural community near New Delhi in North India. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The authors summarize developments in the concept of working memory as a multicomponent system, beginning by contrasting this approach with alternative uses of the term working memory. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most evidence on dementia risk factors comes from older or clinical samples, leaving their relation to normal cognitive aging unclear. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,396 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Key Points Question Which candidate plasma proteins are associated with cognitive performance across multiple domains in older adults from the Democratic Republic of Congo? 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 779 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Middle-aged adults with faster 15-year epigenetic aging trajectories demonstrated worse cognitive performance, whereas those with slower biological aging trajectories exhibited cognitive resilience and more favorable AD biomarker profiles. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,833 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older age was associated with lower Att-Z (β = −0.315, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Parental history of dementia is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, although the mechanisms underlying this association remain poorly understood. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The social, structural, and physical conditions in which individuals live, work, and age, collectively termed social determinants of health (SDOH), are associated with risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Greater diversity of social participation was associated with better long-term cognitive maintenance among older adults with hypertension and/or diabetes. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 547 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Population ageing is accelerating globally, with a rising burden of neurocognitive disorders such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. 5 key findings →
Participants: 63 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All Big Five domains had prospective associations with multiple dementia risk factors and with cognitive impairment, cognitive function, and self-reported memory. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CAD was not associated with global or domain-level neurocognitive performance. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 512 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher educational attainment is associated with steeper measured cognitive decline among older adults in India, but whether this association is uniform across the country is unknown. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,510 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a progressive syndrome characterized by neurodegeneration across distributed brain networks that results in cognitive, behavioral, and functional declines. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prior work has demonstrated a link between cognitive impairment and financial vulnerability. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mean age was 59.6 years, and 57.8% were male. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging is characterized by normative changes in memory and a continued capacity for goal-directed learning and adaptation. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The conventional model (M2) concordance index (C-index) was 0.680, but fell to 0.649 when missingness indicators were removed. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,643 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
M2 C-index 0.682, M3 0.692, M4 0.687. Adding the dyadic mean yielded an estimated ΔC of 0.010 (95% CI -0.003 to 0.024). 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,762 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This nationwide study provides epidemiological data on dementia and MCI among adults aged ≥ 60 years across all 12 administrative regions of Morocco. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,662 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 27,380 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 →