Exercise intensity did not differentially affect cognitive trajectory. 2 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 296 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
As persons with HIV age, noninfectious comorbidities occur more frequently compared with persons without HIV. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 154 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sleep duration is linked to amyloid-β clearance while physical activity is associated with brain volume maintenance. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,322 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 1614 older adults (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [8.7] years; 980 women [60.7%]), 853 were Mexican American (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [7.9] years; 566 women [66.4%]), and 761 were non-Hispanic White (mean [SD] age, 69.1 [8.7] years; 414 women [54.4%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 280 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Olfactory impairment at baseline was strongly associated with 5-year incidence of cognitive impairment as measured using the MMSE. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
56/100
Our recruitment rate demonstrates the feasibility of cohort participants to wear two devices that measure sedentary time and physical activity. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At the baseline evaluation, 256 (62%) of 414 subjects were designated normal; 109 (26%). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 414 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 57 participants (mean age ± SD = 66.6 ± 7.2 years; female = 52.6%), 38.6% (n = 22) had MCI-level functional impairment and 17.5% (n = 10) had dementia-level functional impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
52/100
A total of 2,642 participants with a mean age of 64.3 years (95% CI 63.4-65.1, 44% male) were included. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,642 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
AD is a public health epidemic, which seriously impacts cognition, mood and daily activities; however, one type of activity, exercise, has been shown to alter these states. 3 key findings →
Participants: 104 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A primary goal of research in cognitive impairment and dementia is to understand how some individuals retain sufficient cognitive function for a fulfilling life while many others are robbed of their independence, sometimes their essence, in the last years and decades of life. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hispanics/Latinos are the largest ethnic/racial group in the United States and at high risk for Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All Hispanic/Latino immigrant adults, regardless of age at migration, have a cognitive health disadvantage (at each visit and over time) relative to U.S./mainland-born Hispanic/Latino individuals. 5 key findings →
Participants: 16,415 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multivariable Firth penalized logistic regression identified factors associated with baseline functional impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher offspring education (> 12 years) was associated with higher baseline cognitive scores and faster cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17,484 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In years when older adults subjectively reported fewer difficulties with their finances, they objectively performed better at financial tasks and this relationship became stronger over 10 years. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,802 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Intraindividual cognitive variability (IIV), a measure of within-person variability across cognitive measures at a single time point, is associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher segregation, indicated by lower tract and county-level interaction, was associated with better cognitive and everyday functioning levels but faster rates of decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 695 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Two logic models were developed to identify the determinants of risk for dementia and how these could be targeted by the program. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neighborhood disadvantage in later life is associated with poorer cognition and increased vulnerability to dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared to those in rural areas, participants who resided in urban areas during young adulthood had lower late midlife ADI (β = -0.85, p < .05), and better executive function (β = 0.19), processing speed (β = 0.24), and verbal fluency (β = 0.30) (ps < .05) in older adulthood. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →