Main results Outcome data were available in 202 out of 234 included trials, investigating 60 clinical conditions. 1 key finding →
Participants: 6,041 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Sleep is a fundamental biological process with broad implications for physical and mental health, yet its complex relationship with disease remains poorly understood. 5 key findings →
Participants: 65,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a meta-analysis of 2 one-sample MR studies, the odds ratio (OR) for 1-SD higher BMI in predicting vascular-related dementia was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.13-2.35). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
This review provides the reader with the up-to-date evidence-based basis for prescribing exercise as medicine in the treatment of 26 different diseases: psychiatric diseases (depression, anxiety, stress, schizophrenia); neurological diseases (dementia, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis); metabolic diseases (obesity, hyperlipidemia, metabolic syndrome, polycystic ovarian syndrome, type 2 diabetes, type 1 diabetes); cardiovascular diseases (hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, cerebral apoplexy, and claudication intermittent); pulmonary diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis); musculo-skeletal disorders (osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, back pain, rheumatoid arthritis); and cancer. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
32.5% of elderly with dementia and 16.9% without were treated with an opioid in 2015. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 36,014 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2012, the national prevalence of antipsychotic drug use was 20.7% for elderly patients with dementia, with a national incidence of 3.9%. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 34,536 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Low levels of BDNF accompany impaired glucose metabolism. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
49/100
Chronic inflammation is involved in the pathogenesis of insulin resistance, atherosclerosis, neurodegeneration, and tumour growth. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hypertension is the leading modifiable risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF) and is estimated to be present in >70% of AF patients. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
47/100
In the past, the role of physical activity as a life-style modulating factor has been considered as that of a tool to balance energy intake. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The national prevalence and incidence of registered dementia diagnoses was 3.0% and 0.5%, respectively. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The weighted combined PAF for all 14 risk factors was 38.9%, indicating that nearly 4 in 10 dementia cases in Japan might be preventable. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 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.
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 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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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