High blood pressure increases the risks of stroke, dementia, and neurocognitive dysfunction. 2 key findings →
Participants: 124 Evidence: high
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.
60/100
Participants were most likely to develop depression, apathy, or anxiety, and least likely to develop elation or disinhibition. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although statin use might be less frequent in those with prevalent dementia, we found no association between statin use and subsequent onset of dementia or AD. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,895 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Prior HRT use is associated with reduced risk of AD, but there is no apparent benefit with current HRT use unless such use has exceeded 10 years. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Individuals with all types of mild cognitive impairment have an elevated risk of dementia over 3 years, more so in those with an APOE epsilon4 allele. 3 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
54/100
Commonly used organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides inhibit acetylcholinesterase at synapses in the somatic, autonomic, and central nervous systems and may therefore have lasting effects on the nervous system. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These data confirm that NPS are risk factors for conversion from CIND to dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 230 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In participants with no epsilon4 alleles, the age-specific prevalence of AD reached a maximum and then declined after age 95. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Many elderly individuals remain dementia-free throughout their life. 3 key findings →
Participants: 299 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Use of vitamin E and vitamin C supplements in combination is associated with reduced prevalence and incidence of AD. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prior studies report that subjects with neuropathologic evidence of AD and concomitant brain infarcts had poorer cognitive function and higher frequency of dementia than those with AD alone. 4 key findings →
Participants: 74 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We examined the association of mtDNA variation with Alzheimer disease (AD) risk in Caucasians (989 cases and 328 controls) testing the effect of individual haplogroups and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Cache County Study of Memory in Aging (CCMS) is an epidemiological study of Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive disorders, and aging in a population of exceptionally long-lived individuals (7th to 11th decade). 1 key finding →
Participants: 507 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We examined the relation of APOE-epsilon 4, hippocampal volume, and cognitive performance in ten pairs of cognitively normal twins who had a mean age of 62.5 years (SD = 7.8). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →