An estimated 8.8 million Indians older than 60 years have dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,528 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The study enrolled 181 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.6 [7.2] years; 114 [63.0%] female): 91 to the intervention arm (depression in later life [DIL] intervention) and 90 to care as usual (CAU). 1 key finding →
Participants: 181 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recruitment ended in December 2014 with 16,703 Australian and 2,411 U.S. participants, a median age of 74 (range 65-98) years and 56% women. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with no sensory impairment, DSI was associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.60; 95% CI, 1.66-2.06; P Conclusions and relevance In this cohort study, DSI was associated with increased risk of dementia, particularly AD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The analytic cohort included 2488 black and white older adults with repeated depressive symptom assessments from baseline to year 5 who were free of dementia throughout that period. 4 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,322 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among well-functioning older adults, DM and poor glucose control among those with DM are associated with worse cognitive function and greater decline. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 717 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older adults with diabetes and dementia are at increased risk for hypoglycemia and other adverse events associated with tight glycemic control and are unlikely to experience long-term benefits. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 15,880 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CHS has developed a methodology for longitudinal studies of dementia in large cohorts and represents the largest study of dementia including cognitive testing, MRI and genetic markers. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
High BP accelerates gait slowing in well-functioning older adults over a long period of time, even for those who control their BP or develop hypertension later in life. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,733 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
62/100
Dementia emerged as the most potent risk factor for institutionalization in this 12-year community-based epidemiological study. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,147 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among older adults, anemia is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,552 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
61/100
Although APOE ε4 carriers are at high risk for cognitive decline, our findings suggest possible intervention targets, including the enhancement of cognitive reserve and improvement of other psychosocial and health factors, to promote cognitive resilience among black and white APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 2,487 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
60/100
Lower plasma β-amyloid 42 and 42/40 levels have been associated with incident dementia, but results are conflicting and few have investigated cognitive decline among elders without dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 550 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Poorer OI in older adults without dementia was associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,428 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
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
In these older adults, associations of risk factors with a given cause of death were related to specific deficits in that same organ system. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Depressive symptoms appeared to be early manifestations, rather than predictors, of Alzheimer disease in this community sample. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,366 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In this population, the prevalence of AD and other dementias was low, increased with age, and was not associated with gender or literacy. 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,126 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A technology-based format was feasible for delivering a multi-component intervention to minority family dementia caregivers. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
PIM use may be higher in dementia patients and their informal caregivers compared with the general older adult population. 5 key findings →
Participants: 566 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease was responsible for 4.9% of the deaths in this elderly cohort. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,670 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
56/100
Incidence rates of all dementias and of AD increased with age; men and those with lesser education had higher rates of possible/incipient dementia (CDR = 0.5) in this community. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,298 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Across Latin American and Caribbean countries (LACs), the fight against dementia faces pressing challenges, such as heterogeneity, diversity, political instability, and socioeconomic disparities. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Depressive symptoms are cross-sectionally associated with cognitive impairment but not subsequent cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,265 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →