Hearing loss is independently associated with incident all-cause dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 639 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In this population-based case-control study, any frequency of moderate exercise performed in midlife or late life was associated with a reduced odds of having MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,324 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Regular physical activity could represent an important and potent protective factor for cognitive decline and dementia in elderly persons. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A history of hypertension is related to a higher risk of MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 918 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lipid-lowering agent use was associated with a lower risk of dementia, and specifically of Alzheimer disease, in those younger than 80 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 492 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Simultaneous consideration of previous knowledge regarding potentially AD-related nutrients and multiple food groups can aid in identifying food combinations that are associated with AD risk. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Obesity at midlife is associated with an increased risk of dementia and AD later in life. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,449 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Ninety-nine new cases of dementia (including 71 of Alzheimer disease) occurred during the follow-up. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The incidence and prevalence of dementia are expected to increase several-fold in the coming decades. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At the baseline evaluation, 256 (62%) of 414 subjects were designated normal; 109 (26%). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 414 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Higher intake of calories and fats may be associated with higher risk of AD in individuals carrying the apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele. 5 key findings →
Participants: 980 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Use of vitamin E and vitamin C supplements in combination is associated with reduced prevalence and incidence of AD. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 5-year cumulative incidence of neurotoxicity was 24%; this incidence increases over time. 4 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
- 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →