27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, blood pressure lowering with antihypertensive agents compared with control was significantly associated with a lower risk of incident dementia or cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 96,158 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Greater adherence to a Mediterranean diet is associated with a significant improvement in health status, as seen by a significant reduction in overall mortality (9%), mortality from cardiovascular diseases (9%), incidence of or mortality from cancer (6%), and incidence of Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease (13%). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 574,299 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pooling data on more than 600,000 people, this meta-analysis found that people who reported feeling lonely had about a 30% higher risk of developing dementia overall, and even higher risk for vascular dementia specifically, even after accounting for depression and objective social isolation. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 608,561 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Further studies are warranted to develop and refine the specific MIND diet for different populations. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 224,049 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a public health priority for the 21st century. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 74,046 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this meta-analysis of the association of physical activity with cognitive decline, physical activity was associated with better late-life cognition, but the association was weak. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 341,471 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The first single-stage individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials provides evidence to support benefits of antihypertensive treatment in late-mid and later life to lower the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,008 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified 22 hospital-based and eight population-based eligible cohorts (7511 patients) described in 73 papers. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,511 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The global prevalence of MCI among community dwellers is over 15% and is affected by age, gender, education level and region of study sites. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 242,804 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Antihypertensive use was associated with decreased AD but not non-AD risk throughout late life. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 31,250 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this meta-analysis, the usage of hearing restorative devices by participants with hearing loss was associated with a 19% decrease in hazards of long-term cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 137,484 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We aimed to present the first detailed analysis of the global prevalence, mortality, and overall burden of dementia as captured by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016, and highlight the most important messages for clinicians and neurologists. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 2846 articles identified, 94 studies were eligible, with up to 14 529 participants for WMH, 16 012 participants for BI, 15 693 participants for CMB, and 4587 participants for PVS. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 529 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings suggest that risk factors associated with ADRDs have changed over the past decade and differ based on sex and race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 378 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Main results We included two trials with 26,340 participants aged 40 to 82 years of whom 11,610 were aged 70 or older. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 26,340 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 45 reviews with 212 meta-analyses were synthesized. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 45 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Forty-five studies involving over 730 000 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
PA was associated with lower incidence of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease, even in longer follow-ups, supporting PA as a modifiable protective lifestyle factor, even after reducing the effects of reverse causation. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 257,983 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sleep disturbances and dementia are two common and significant health problems in older adults. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 246,786 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A healthy lifestyle as a composite score is associated with a substantially lower risk of Alzheimer's dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,845 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 48,522 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results show that the western diet pattern is a risk factor for developing AD. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 38 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pooling data on over 2.3 million people worldwide, this analysis confirmed that type 2 diabetes raises dementia risk by roughly 60% in both men and women, but the excess risk of vascular dementia specifically was notably higher in women than men. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,310,330 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A large fraction of dementia cases in the US were associated with potentially modifiable risk factors, especially for Black and Hispanic individuals. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →