31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The prevalence of dementia was low, despite a high prevalence of aMCI and CIND. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,074 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In multivariate analysis, feeding tube use was found to be associated with swallowing problems (odds ratio (OR) 5.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.3-6.8); urban location of nursing home (OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.3-3.5); non-white race (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.9-3.6); stroke (OR 2.5, 95% CI 2.0-3.1); and absence of dementia (OR 2.5, 95% CI 2.0-3.1). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,997 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The study population consisted of 16,981 individuals (mean age: 62.4, 51.6% female, 68.7% non-Hispanic White, 15.5% in rural areas). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16,981 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The national combined PAF for 11 modifiable risk factors was 39.6 % (95 % CI: 20.8-55.9). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 86,494 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Selenium is a trace element associated with antioxidant activity and is considered to be a protective agent against free radicals through enhanced enzyme activity. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hypertension prevalence was higher in urban (range 52.6-79.8%) than rural sites (range 42.6-56.9%), and lower in men than women [pooled prevalence ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-0.93]. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia is often unrecognized and undocumented in private practice settings. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To better characterize the potential biological mechanisms underlying insulin resistance (IR) and dementia, we derive cross-population and population specific polygenic scores [PSs] for fasting insulin and IR-related partitioned PSs [pPSs]. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The PRISM-PC questionnaire captures primary care patients' acceptance, perceived harms, and perceived benefits of dementia screening. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 315 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Understanding variability in conceptions of dementia in multiethnic populations is important to improve care and guide research. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated cognitive impairment, a significant cause of morbidity, affects up to 30% of HIV-infected people. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In individuals without a prior diagnosis of cognitive impairment, the prevalence of dementia was low, but the prevalence of CIND was high. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study aimed to explore racial/ethnic differences in the attitudes toward Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and dementia caregiving among midlife women who were family caregivers of persons living with AD (MWPLAD) in the U.S. and examine the associations of the attitudes to their health outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
IL-6 levels were negatively associated with performance on the MMSE in this multiethnic cohort. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-three studies were included, most published after 2019 (72.7%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite comprising the largest segment of the sexual minority population and experiencing unique stressors and health disparities, bi+ dementia caregivers remain underrepresented in health and caregiving research. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 125 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants in the study had an average age of 85.4 ± 7.1 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2022, among a total of 2 189 231 Medicare beneficiaries aged 45 to 64 years, 71 092 (3.25%) received a diagnosis of YOD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Nonresponders in community surveys of the elderly appear to be disproportionately cognitively impaired. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cognitive assessment is a basic element for dementia diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
NLR may be useful to identify and stratify patients who could benefit from adjunctive anti-inflammatory treatment. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The purpose of this study was to explore the phenomenon of dementia caregiving in an ethnically diverse group of Latino caregivers, with the goal of identifying cultural influences on the caregiving experience. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
78% of students agreed or strongly agreed that Time for Dementia had increased their knowledge of psychosocial issues, and 69% enjoyed the programme. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Targeted interventions, as enhanced training and improved support systems, are essential to address these disparities and better support GPs. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 789 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
INTRODUCTIONThe number of people living with dementia in many African countries is anticipated to treble by 2050. 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events