28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
In this sample of 101 219 patients, 52.7% were women and mean age was 62.6 years (SD, 9.3 years) as of November 1, 2016. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 101,219 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Among older adults without cognitive impairment or dementia, both an unfavorable lifestyle and high genetic risk were significantly associated with higher dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 383 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An intervention with MedDiets enhanced with either EVOO or nuts appears to improve cognition compared with a low-fat diet. 5 key findings →
Participants: 522 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Then, voxel-wise brainwide association analyses were used to identify gray matter volumes (GMVs) associated with social isolation and with loneliness. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 462,619 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The hippocampus shrinks in late adulthood, leading to impaired memory and increased risk for dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, dementia was documented in 193 (6.3%) of the 3051 randomized participants in the actively treated group and 217 (7.1%) of the 3054 randomized participants in the placebo group (relative risk reduction, 12% [95% confidence interval, -8% to 28%]; P =.2). 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,105 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The FINGER intervention was beneficial regardless of participants' characteristics and can thus be implemented in a large elderly population at increased risk for dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Main results We included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. 4 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Increased absolute sugar intake (g/day) was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause dementia (HR = 1.003, [95%CI: 1.002-1.004], p < 0.001) and Alzheimer's disease (1.002, [1.001-1.004], 0.005). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 210,832 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
This randomized trial followed 2,111 older adults at risk for cognitive decline across 5 US sites for two years, comparing a highly structured lifestyle program (regular exercise, MIND diet, cognitive/social engagement, health coaching) against a lower-intensity, self-guided version of the same components. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 2,111 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This long-term follow-up of the SPRINT randomized trial tested whether intensively lowering systolic blood pressure (to below 120, vs. the standard target of below 140) reduces the risk of thinking problems in adults 50+ with hypertension. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 9,361 Evidence: moderate
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
The FINGER is at the forefront of international collaborative efforts to solve the clinical and public health problems of early identification of individuals at increased risk of late-life cognitive impairment, and of developing intervention strategies to prevent or delay the onset of cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
We also determined the extent to which sex, educational attainment, and apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (APOE*4) carrier status were associated with decline. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 42,170 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
133 systematic reviews (2,724 RCTs and 258 279 participants) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 279 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 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.
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 →