27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This study is based on 2 cross-sectional surveys of people aged 75 years or over conducted in central Stockholm: the Kungsholmen Project (KP) (1987-1989, n = 1,700) and the Swedish National study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) (2001-2004, n = 1,575). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,700 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We aimed to verify the association between diabetes and the risk of dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and vascular dementia in twins and to explore whether genetic and early-life environmental factors could contribute to this association. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 13,693 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The relation of blood pressure with cognitive function and dementia has, in recent years, received much attention from epidemiological research. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Having multiple CMBs or concomitant CMBs and retinopathy is associated with a profile of vascular cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,906 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Diabetes and pre-diabetes substantially accelerate the progression from MCI to dementia, and anticipate dementia occurrence by more than 3 years in people with MCI. 3 key findings →
Participants: 302 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Family history of dementia was associated with an increased risk of dementia and AD in this very old population, but only among APOE epsilon4 carriers. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 907 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Individuals with neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular, and sensory impairment/cancer patterns are at increased risk for dementia and APOE ε4, and inflammation may further increase the risk. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,478 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During the 6534 person-years of follow-up (mean, 5.02 years per person), 440 subjects were diagnosed as having dementia, including 333 with Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,301 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
More than 25 million people in the world today are affected by dementia, most suffering from Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The estimated total annual costs of dementia in China increased from 0.9 billion United States dollars (US$) in 1990 to US$ 47.2 billion in 2010 and were predicted to reach US$ 69.0 billion in 2020 and US$ 114.2 billion in 2030. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The incidence of dementia and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increases with age. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Current evidence suggests that vascular factors, such as midlife hypertension, diabetes, and cerebrovascular disease, contribute significantly to the development of dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and that active engagement in mental, physical, and social activities may postpone the onset of dementia by providing cognitive reserve. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
As the population ages, the number of people with dementia is expected to increase in the coming decades, with consequences at the societal and individual levels. 4 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →