Limited literacy is independently associated with a nearly 2-fold increase in mortality in the elderly. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Cross-sectional study, Health, Aging and Body Composition data (1999/2000). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Black race was associated with greater dementia risk even after adjustment for education and other potential confounders. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Midlife individuals who experienced HDP had lower regional CBF and reduced white matter microstructural integrity, compared with those with no adverse pregnancy outcomes. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 81 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
High white matter grade (WMG) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a risk factor for dementia, stroke and disability. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,245 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These are the first AD incidence rates to be reported from the Indian subcontinent, and they appear to be among the lowest ever reported. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Demented individuals were less likely than their nondemented counterparts to be taking lipid-lowering drugs. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There is a shortage of adequate screening instruments for dementia in poorly educated populations and non-English-speaking groups. 1 key finding →
Participants: 5,126 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
49/100
Virtual data collection was highly feasible in both studies, successfully engaging participants in ADRD research, including those from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
48/100
We determined the relationship between apolipoprotein (Apo)E, MRI, and low cognitive scores. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our data support the use of population-based cutpoints over standard cutoff scores, in that the global scale at the conventional cutoff was less sensitive than the battery at the same percentile, and because adequate norms do not exist for tests such as those in the battery. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,367 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This article outlines methodological enhancements to better evaluate treatment approaches in future registration trials and provides an algorithm for improving the treatment of these patients in nursing home and non-nursing home settings. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older women with low estradiol levels were more likely to experience decline in global cognitive function and verbal memory, and a similar trend was observed for verbal memory in men. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Only a minority of subjects initiated ACP. 3 key findings →
Participants: 127 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite providing high-intensity care, often for years, many bereaved caregivers perceived themselves as unprepared for the death. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of the n = 180 participants recruited, n = 77 participated in this study, n = 37 caregivers and n = 40 non-caregivers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 180 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Interpretation of cognitive test performance among individuals from a given population requires an understanding of cognitive norms in that population. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As part of a cross-national study of dementia epidemiology, two types of verbal fluency tasks were administered to three groups of subjects, varying in level of literacy and education, recruited from the rural district of Ballabgarh in northern India. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
36/100
As the rates of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD and related dementias (ADRD) in the United States steadily rise, so too does the demand for informal caregiving. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study was conducted in a psychiatric setting that services a large metropolitan population. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,780 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.
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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 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