Light treatment alone did not improve nighttime sleep, daytime wake, or rest-activity rhythm. 4 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The incidence of MCR is high in older adults. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,128 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our prediction model was internally evaluated based on five-fold cross-validation on discrimination and calibration, and it was further compared with existing prediction scales. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,416 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 415 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results encourage an independent validation cohort study to confirm the indication that the plasma Aβ 1-40 /Aβ 1-42 ratio, assessed via Simoa, may improve future standard of care and clinical trial design. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 276 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Promising results are reported across nearly all 51 studies, but very few have been implemented in clinical research or practice. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
69/100
The prevalence and incidence of early-onset dementia among adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 12,648 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with PWOH, PWH were at 58% higher risk for dementia despite HIV treatment with ART. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,381 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Incident use of neuroleptics in Ontario nursing homes is substantial. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 19,780 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adults with TSCI are at a heightened risk for ADRD. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,019 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This meta-analysis provides evidence that poor gait performance predicts dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This cohort study found that COVID-19 mortality decreased over time during 2020 and that patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities were associated with higher clinical severity. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 174 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
On meta-analysis, PARO had no ST or LT compared to UC or AC over 5-12 weeks on agitation (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 153 participants: pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.25; - 0.57 to 0.06; LT vs UC; 2 trials, 77 participants, SMD = -0.24; - 0.94, 0.46), cognition (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 128 participants: SMD= 0.03; -0.32, 0.38), overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 169 participants: SMD= -0.01; -0.32, 0.29; ST vs AC, 2 trials, 145 participants: SMD =0.02, -0.71, 0.85), apathy (ST vs AC, 2 trials, 81 participants: SMD= 0.14; 0.29, 0.58), depression (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 181 participants; SMD= 0.08; -0.52, 0.69; LT vs UC: 2 trials, 77 participants: SMD =0.01; -0.75, 0.77), anxiety (ST vs UC: 2 trials, 104 participants, SMD= 0.24; -0.85, 1.33) and quality of life (ST vs UC, 2 trials, 127 participants: SMD=-0.05; -0.52, 0.42; ST vs AC: 2 trials, 159 participants, SMD =-0.36, -0.76, 0.05). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 153 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Targeted clinical application of specific technologies is poised to revolutionize precision care in dementia as these technologies may be used both by patients and caregivers, and at a systems level to provide safe and effective care. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,337 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Identification of individuals with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is important. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 18,548 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The heterogeneity of neurodegenerative diseases is a key confound to disease understanding and treatment development, as study cohorts typically include multiple phenotypes on distinct disease trajectories. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Data collected from clinical trials and cohort studies, such as dementia studies, are often high-dimensional, censored, heterogeneous and contain missing information, presenting challenges to traditional statistical analysis. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,037 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite the promise of a multitude of sensors and devices that can be applied, there are no agreed-upon standards for digital biomarkers, nor are there comprehensive evidence-based results for which digital biomarkers may be demonstrated to be most effective. 3 key findings →
Participants: 279 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Main results We identified no studies which met the inclusion criteria. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results support an association between the use of ADT in the treatment of prostate cancer and an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease in a general population cohort. 4 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 16,888 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Androgen deprivation therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer may be associated with an increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 9,455 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Due to valued informal care, costs of care for community-living patients with moderate dementia are significantly higher than for patients with mild dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among older Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure, there is a higher overall burden of comorbidity and greater prevalence of discordant comorbidity among the oldest old. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 201,130 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dialysis modality is associated with incident dementia in a cohort of older ESRD patients. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 121,623 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dual-eligible older persons are at greater risk for decline in function and cognition after an ICU hospitalization than their more advantaged counterparts. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 641 Evidence: moderate
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 →