27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Included in the analysis were 48,330 participants across 46 ADRCs (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [10.5] years; 20,767 female [57%]; 4,138 Hispanic [8.6%]; 1,392 non-Hispanic Asian [2.9%]; 6,766 non-Hispanic Black [14%] individuals; and 676 individuals [1.4%] of other races. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 48,330 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The final sample comprised 2478 individuals, of which 59 (2.4%) were Asian, 63 (2.5%) were Black, and 2356 (95.1%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,478 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 6451 individuals, the mean (SD) age was 59.4 (6.1) years, and 3841 (59.5%) were women. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,190 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Limited evidence suggests that the APOEε4 allele may confer risk for CTE, but previous studies were small with limited scope. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 294 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ObjectivesIdentifying modifiable factors that shape cognitive aging trajectories is a central goal in aging research. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,140 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prevalence of dementia, AD, and VaD among individuals aged 65 years and older were 5.14% (95% CI, 4.71-5.57), 3.21% (95% CI, 2.87-3.55), and 1.50% (95% CI, 1.26-1.74), respectively. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 6,096 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In this diverse community-based cohort, cross-sectional data revealed significant race/ethnic disparities in the prevalence of MCI and dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 989 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sample weights were used to ensure result generalizability. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,527 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is associated with adverse outcomes among ESRD patients. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 694 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We found no statistically significant difference in measures of WM injury by race and ethnicity after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and socioeconomic status. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,036 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although, anatomical disparities of the rodent medial prefrontal cortex compared to the primate homologue are apparent, current rodent models have effectively implicated the medial prefrontal cortex as a neural substrate of cognitive decline within ageing and dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
International hospital-based studies have indicated a high risk of cognitive impairment after stroke, evidence from community-based studies in China is scarce. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 599 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Less EQ and YoE were associated with brain alterations across groups. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 7,533 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Blacks and Hispanics were more prone to falsely positive perceptions of their cognitive function in the presence of cognitive impairment than non-Hispanic Whites. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,096 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Positive associations between self-efficacy and language did not significantly differ across race/ethnicity, although the bivariate association between self-efficacy and language was not significant among Hispanics. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 548 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prevalence of stroke in urban LA and Chinese sites is nearly as high as in industrialised countries. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Physicians noted impairment in a minority of impaired patients. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,107 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Non-linear associations between features of land use and cognitive impairment were confirmed in this new cohort of older people in England. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our goal was to determine the patient and caregiver characteristics associated with the reduction of employment hours in caregivers of frail elders. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,806 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The number of older adults with dementia in the US and globally is projected to increase as a result of population aging and growth. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When compared with the Low MedDiet group, the High MedDiet group was associated with better L&M performance and larger dentate gyri. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It could be of great improvement for the use of the MMSE in dementia screening in Chinese elderly population. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 9,629 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This analysis combining data from two health systems shows that area deprivation is an independent risk factor for cognitive dysfunction in older adults. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,186 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Attenuation of racial inequalities in older age can be extended to cognitive outcomes, which probably reflects selective survival. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,875 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research on racial differences in Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia has increased in recent years. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →