Recent research has revealed an association between hearing impairment and dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 154,783 Evidence: moderate
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.
72/100
There has been growing evidence showing gait variability provides unique information about gait characteristics in neurological disorders. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 777 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings demonstrate the importance of community-based patient-centered care strategies for stroke survivors that address their range of health needs and prevent more costly acute care use. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 29,673 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
An optimized immunoassay was used to analyze CSF Ng in a retrospective cohort of 331 participants with different neurodegenerative diseases, including healthy controls (n = 19), biomarker-proven Alzheimer disease (AD) (n = 100), genetic AD (n = 2), behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (n = 20), speech variant frontotemporal dementia (n = 21), Lewy body dementia (n = 13), Parkinson disease (n = 31), progressive supranuclear palsy (n = 46), multiple system atrophy (n = 29), as well as a heterogeneous group with non-neurodegenerative cognitive impairment (n = 50). 1 key finding →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 19 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Graph theoretical analysis of the speech/language network showed that regions with shorter functional paths to the epicentre exhibited greater longitudinal atrophy. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
61/100
Additionally, the performance of each scale to predict dementia pathology both individually and in combination was evaluated using a support vector classifier, which was compared with expert scan assessment to estimate clinical value. 2 key findings →
Participants: 184 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It is unclear how or whether oral health and cognitive status are related. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hospitalised people with cognitive impairment experience significantly greater length of stay and when discharged to their usual residence are more likely to be readmitted to hospital within 28 days compared with those without cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Comorbidities in community-living older adults with dementia are common and account for a substantial proportion of health service use and costs in this population. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Due to complex relationships of body-mass index and blood pressure with dementia individual components cancelled each other out and rendered the sum-scores meaningless for the prediction of dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,547 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
IBS is associated with an increased risk of dementia, and this effect is obvious only in patients who are ≥50 years old. 4 key findings →
Participants: 192 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In patients with osteoporosis and no recent fracture, falls, older age, poorer health status, comorbidities, and other potential fall risk factors were predictive of imminent risk for fracture. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most people with dementia prefer to remain in their own homes, and funding bodies see this as cheaper than institutionalisation. 1 key finding →
Participants: 3,075 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Relative to healthy controls, and after accounting for nonverbal executive performance, patients with bvFTD showed deficits of noun and verb naming and single word comprehension, diminished spontaneous propositional speech, and deterioration in naming performance over time. 3 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study demonstrated the use of speech measures in the identification of those with an oral-motor deficit, and showed the usefulness of performing a relatively simple reading test to assess speech versus pause behaviors across the ALS-FTD disease continuum. 3 key findings →
Participants: 136 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Most inpatient users of VR described the experience as pleasant and capable of reducing pain and anxiety. 4 key findings →
Participants: 510 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hypertensive pregnancy disorders are associated with worse performance on tests of processing speed and smaller brain volumes decades later. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,279 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Most patients received physical assessments, including mobility (89 %), continence (84 %) and pressure sore risk (87 %); however assessment of pain (75 %), and particularly functioning (36 %) was poor. 3 key findings →
Participants: 660 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
While computerised tomography (CT) may have been the first imaging tool to study human brain, it has not yet been implemented into clinical decision making process for diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 285 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Algorithms developed from health administrative data are sensitive and specific for identifying older adults with AD-RD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 3,404 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
50/100
The restricted use of BDZRs may contribute to dementia prevention in the elderly. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Because individuals develop dementia as a manifestation of neurodegenerative or neurovascular disorder, there is a need to develop reliable approaches to their identification. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
47/100
It has been proved that the proposed system is suitable to support clinicians to reliably drive and evaluate clinical interventions toward quality of life improvement of people with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Rey's Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) is a powerful neuropsychological tool for testing episodic memory, which is widely used for the cognitive assessment in dementia and pre-dementia conditions. 2 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 →