The search over five databases identified 898 articles, with 26 meeting the inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
176 and 131 participants developed incident frailty, as measured with the FI and TFI respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 131 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 92 383 participants, 60 582 (65.6%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 56.4 (8.0) years. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 92,383 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
70/100
In this prospective cohort study, higher consumption of UPF was associated with higher risk of dementia, whereas substituting unprocessed or minimally processed foods for UPF was associated with lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 72,083 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In this cohort study, a higher number of steps was associated with lower risk of all-cause dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 78,430 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
70/100
In this nationwide population-based study, SGLT2i use significantly reduced the risks of neurodegenerative disorders in patients with type 2 diabetes independent of various factors including comorbidities and bioclinical parameters. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 358,862 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of this cohort study suggest that hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, especially among people not using hearing aids, suggesting that hearing aids might prevent or delay the onset and progression of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 573,088 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
70/100
Using datasets from a wide range of geographical regions, we found that both early life education and adulthood occupational complexity were independently predictive of dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,195 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sleep apnea (SA) is potentially a modifiable risk factor for dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,333,424 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The negative association between depression treatment and incident dementia was significant in the increasing and chronically low courses, highlighting the necessity of timely interventional strategies before depression progresses to a chronically severe state. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 354,313 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We found no evidence to suggest that the current assumption of constant age-specific prevalence of dementia over time is ill-founded. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Meta-analysis of these studies suggests a 29% decreased risk of developing dementia among estrogen users, but the findings of the studies are heterogeneous. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Out of the 664 studies screened, five studies met eligibility criteria. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The patients receiving regular PPI medication (n = 2950; mean [SD] age, 83.8 [5.4] years; 77.9% female) had a significantly increased risk of incident dementia compared with the patients not receiving PPI medication (n = 70,729; mean [SD] age, 83.0 [5.6] years; 73.6% female) (hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.36-1.52]; P Conclusions and relevance The avoidance of PPI medication may prevent the development of dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,950 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Risk stratification is critical for the early identification of high-risk individuals and disease prevention. 3 key findings →
Participants: 117,981 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this cohort study of more than 350 000 veterans, even mild TBI without LOC was associated with more than a 2-fold increase in the risk of dementia diagnosis. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 178 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
High cholesterol in late life was associated with decreased dementia risk, which is in contrast to previous studies suggesting high cholesterol in mid-life is a risk factor for later dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 392 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
70/100
Tai Chi shows potential to enhance cognitive function in older adults, particularly in the realm of executive functioning and in individuals without significant impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 2,553 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine sedation reduced incidence, delayed onset, and shortened duration of POD in elderly patients after cardiac surgery. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
70/100
Cost-effective strategies to maintain healthy active lifestyle in aging populations are required to address the global burden of age-related diseases. 2 key findings →
Participants: 14,383 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cybercycling older adults achieved better cognitive function than traditional exercisers, for the same effort, suggesting that simultaneous cognitive and physical exercise has greater potential for preventing cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Multimorbidity (hazard ratio [HR] 4·12 [95% CI 3·41-4·98]), frailty (HR 2·38 [95% CI 1·93-2·93]), and disability (HR 1·73 [95% CI 1·34-2·22]) were associated with increased risk of mortality; these associations were not modified by socioeconomic status. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 308 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This is the first randomized trial to investigate the impact of a ketogenic diet in patients with uniform diagnoses of AD. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 26 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increasing crystallised intelligence and fruit and vegetable consumption and eliminating depression and diabetes are likely to have the biggest impact on reducing the incidence of dementia, outweighing even the effect of removing the principal known genetic risk factor. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,433 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The strength of evidence for an association between gait speed and cognition was demonstrated by the number and consistency of results, as well as quality of the studies. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29,520 Evidence: high
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 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.
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 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 →