Over a mean follow-up of 14.6 years, 7.7% of the participants (n = 614) developed dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 7,960 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A total of 5,129 participants were included in the study (59% female; 22% identified as Black; mean (standard deviation) age at visit 5 of 75 (5) years). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,026 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For non-Indigenous peoples, the crude and age-standardised (World Health Organization standard) prevalence of dementia was 10.6 and 7.4 per 1000 persons, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a follow-up period of 6.2 years, 513 participants were diagnosed with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 513 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant reduction in underdiagnosis of dementia was observed between the two periods, consistent across most countries. 4 key findings →
Participants: 10,402 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared to good olfaction, moderate olfaction (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26 to 1.86), hyposmia (HR: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.81 to 2.78), and anosmia (HR: 3.47, 95% CI: 2.77 to 4.34) were all associated with higher dementia hazard; these associations were consistent across age, race, sex, and APOE ε4 groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 4,470 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Index participants averaged 71.9 years, with > 50% lacking formal education. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,309 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Linear and logistic regression showed that childhood rural residence was associated with lower memory (standardized beta (β) = -1.68, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-2.39, -0.97]), executive function (β = -1.20, 95% CI [-1.84, -0.55]), and language fluency (β = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.64, -0.08]). 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,073 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Fine particulate matter, known as PM 2.5, is recognized as a risk factor for dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 217,336 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among 259 945 decedents with dementia (mean [SD] age, 85.8 [8.0] years; 60.4% female), 8.3% were non-Hispanic Black, 4.4% were Hispanic, and 87.3% were non-Hispanic White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
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
Among 934,792 individuals, 81,731 developed dementia over a mean follow-up of 11·6 years. 1 key finding →
Participants: 934,792 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All Hispanic/Latino immigrant adults, regardless of age at migration, have a cognitive health disadvantage (at each visit and over time) relative to U.S./mainland-born Hispanic/Latino individuals. 5 key findings →
Participants: 16,415 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
By 2060, ADRD cases in China are projected to reach approximately 49.89 million, with the highest prevalence and economic burden concentrated in provinces such as Shandong, Sichuan, Jiangsu, Henan, and Guangdong. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Globally, the age-standardized incidence rates (ASIR) remained relatively steady. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Examining the risk of clinically diagnosed dementia in older adults, our study found a 65% increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia in individuals with diabetes compared with those without. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher ARTS score was associated (all ps < 0.01) with incident MCI (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.29), dementia (HR = 1.33), and stroke (HR = 1.52) and with diastolic/systolic blood pressure, self-reported hypertension, claudication, congestive heart failure, smoking, and glomerular filtration rate in the combined sample. 5 key findings →
Participants: 707 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia prevalence exceeds 40% for individuals in advanced old age, but that figure is not informative about the lifetime risk of ever having dementia or the risk of having dementia for different durations. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
In 2023, there were 205,507 people with dementia in the CPRD database, 40,244 with Parkinson's disease, 3515 with MND and 1672 with Huntington's disease. 5 key findings →
Participants: 205,507 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
While educational disparities in dementia incidence are well-known, whether and to what extent they persist beyond dementia onset is less explored. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older adults in rural India experience higher social isolation due to limited social and healthcare resources. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 71,513 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2021, global mortality from AD and other dementias among individuals aged 60 and older reached approximately 1,922,970.75 cases (95% CI: 480,348.08 to 5,104,315.95), and the prevalence was 52,560,253.51 cases (95% CI: 41,399,948.84 to 65,633,448.71). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
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 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.
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 31,380 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