30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The sample consisted of 447 decedents (249 men [56%]; mean [SD] age, 80.3 [9.5] years; median year of death, 2011) spanning 24 years of donation. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 14 participants (2 in part A and 12 in parts B and C) completed at least 12 months of follow-up and were included in the analyses. 5 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Hearing loss is associated with poor cognitive performance and incident dementia and may contribute to cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 164,770 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample included 740 donors (417 female [56.4%]; mean [SD] age at death, 81.5 [10.3] years; mean [SD] VBI score, 0.7 [1.0]; and median life course ADI, 7.08 [IQR, 4.33-9.83]), with residential years spanning 1905 to 2018. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 740 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 1614 older adults (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [8.7] years; 980 women [60.7%]), 853 were Mexican American (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [7.9] years; 566 women [66.4%]), and 761 were non-Hispanic White (mean [SD] age, 69.1 [8.7] years; 414 women [54.4%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 280 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirteen percent of care recipients had at least 1 ACSH. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 57 participants (mean age ± SD = 66.6 ± 7.2 years; female = 52.6%), 38.6% (n = 22) had MCI-level functional impairment and 17.5% (n = 10) had dementia-level functional impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (n = 156) were younger, more often female, and less often college-educated or white than those in less disadvantaged neighborhoods (n = 1963). 3 key findings →
Participants: 156 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Exposure to high neighborhood‐level socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with negative health outcomes. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 645 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found that both state of birth and state of residence account for a modest portion of ADRD mortality variation. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neighborhood disadvantage was associated with worse cognitive performance on memory, executive function, processing speed, and preclinical Alzheimer's tests on both datasets. 5 key findings →
Participants: 524 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample (n = 26,728) was equally distributed across gender (55.1% women) and education (50.8% completed HS/GED diploma), and 30% came from under-represented racial/ethnic groups. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26,728 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant ADI × dementia interaction was observed for global atrophy (p = .005) and several other outcomes. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When risk factors were evaluated independently, we found less early-life education, mid-life hearing loss and diabetes, and late-life social isolation and visual loss associated with increased odds for dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,526 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multivariable Firth penalized logistic regression identified factors associated with baseline functional impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This analysis found that the mean brain age gap does not significantly differ between Quintile 5 and Quintiles 1‐4 (p≤0.45), however statistical power was low given very broad confidence intervals. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,052 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Large pre-trained models, also known as foundation models (FMs), are trained in a task-agnostic manner on large-scale data and can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks by fine-tuning, few-shot, or even zero-shot learning. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ADI was significantly higher in this cohort ( M = 3.84, SD = 2.58) than in the surrounding county ( M = 2.79, SD = 1.88, p = .000). 5 key findings →
Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Even after accounting for established individual‐level demographic, socioeconomic, health, and genetic risk factors for cognitive decline, greater neighborhood disadvantage is associated with an accelerated rate of annualized decline in delayed recall performance across mid to late life in a community sample. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,554 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This review covers recent advances (2023-2024) in neuroimaging research into the pathophysiology, progression, and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found that ∼25% of donors lived in high deprivation contexts, 52% had at least one incidence of CVD, and the cohort identified as .05). 3 key findings →
Participants: 7,187 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found a dose‐dependent association between ADI and dementia The ADI may be a valuable tool for identifying high‐risk communities for dementia intervention. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,395,872 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Using a large and diverse community‐based cohort, we demonstrate that ethno‐racial differences in AD‐specific plasma biomarkers are, in part, due to modifiable health and comorbidity factors. 2 key findings →
Participants: 931 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our framework highlights individual-, system-, and community-level factors and resources influencing person-centered eating and swallowing care for PLWD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with education, health behaviors and mortality. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,479 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events