We identified fifty studies (N=1,548,754). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,548,754 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.
Six prospective cohort studies with seven datasets, including 484,994 participants and a follow-up of 3.5 to 13.0 years, were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 484,994 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fourteen cohorts including 726,900 participants were analyzed. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 726,900 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Study-level data from 14 studies, 2,310,330 individuals, and 102,174 dementia case patients were included. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,310,330 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
86/100
The meta-analysis showed that hearing impairment is associated with a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia among older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 15,521 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Vision impairment (VI) and eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma and cataract have been reported to be associated with cognitive impairment and dementia, however, to date, very little attempt has been made to collate and synthesizes such literature. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 232 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 1648 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 38 hospitals, 398 (24.2%) died during hospitalization and 1250 (75.8%) survived. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,648 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), the most prevalent dementia, is partially driven by genetics. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 94,437 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As visual impairment, cataract, and diabetic retinopathy are associated with an increased likelihood of developing dementia, early diagnosis may help identify those at risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 37,705 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 285 participants randomized (suvorexant, N = 142; placebo, N = 143), 277 (97%) completed the trial (suvorexant, N = 136; placebo, N = 141). 4 key findings →
Participants: 142 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 20 studies were included in the systematic review, and 17 provided data for the meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hearing loss is one of the top contributors to years lived with disability and is a risk factor for dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 723,266 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Electrophysiological and behavioral tests demonstrated strong correlation and accurate hearing impairment detection compared to PTA. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,071 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As the literature related to cognitive reserve (CR) in individuals with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is only emerging, a clear consensus on the relationship among CR proxies, brain status, and clinical performance has not been reached. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,423 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 5971 titles were reviewed and 60 studies were included in the analysis, 36 RCTs and 24 observational studies. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 5,971 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,791 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In analyses that addressed bias due to reverse causation, physical inactivity was not associated with all-cause dementia or Alzheimer's disease, although an indication of excess dementia risk was observed in a subgroup of physically inactive individuals who developed cardiometabolic disease. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 404 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ACHIEVE-P sets the stage for the full-scale ACHIEVE trial (N = 850, recruitment beginning November 2017), the first randomized trial to determine efficacy of a best practices hearing (vs. successful aging) intervention on reducing cognitive decline in older adults with HL. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 850 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Regarding exposures to air pollution, there was convincing (class I) evidence for the association between long-term exposure to solvents and a higher incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment (odds ratio, OR=1.139), and highly suggestive (class II) evidence for the association between long-term exposure to some pollutants and higher risk for cognitive disorders (higher incidence of dementia with high vs. low levels of carbon monoxide, CO: OR=1.587; higher incidence of vascular dementia per 1 μg/m 3 increase of nitrogen oxides, NO x : hazard ratio, HR=1.004). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 195 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total, 30 studies were included comprising 14,997 subjects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 14,997 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our systematic review indicates that a majority of studies examining the vision-cognition relationship report that VI is associated with more cognitive decline, cognitive impairment or dementia among older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
How and when education improves cognitive capacity is an issue of profound societal importance. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,009 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean rate of brain atrophy per year was 0.76% [95% CI, 0.63-0.90] in the active treatment group and 1.08% [0.94-1.22] in the placebo group (P = 0.001). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 271 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Study objectives Mounting evidence implicates disturbed sleep or lack of sleep as one of the risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the extent of the risk is uncertain. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 69,216 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 267 (3.8%) women had diabetes and 297 (4.2%) had IFG. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 267 Evidence: high
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 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 →