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
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among 113,511 participants (mean age: 56.8 ± 8.09 years, female: 54.4%), a total number of 1,135 (1.00%) cases of incident dementia were identified during a median follow up period of 11.1 years [interquartile range (IQR): 10.9-11.4 years]. 4 key findings →
Participants: 500,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The empirical study showed a U-shaped relationship between sleep duration and increased risk of cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) has been proposed as a protective factor that modifies the effect of brain pathology on cognitive performance. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The univariable regression models revealed a higher likelihood of dementia diagnosis in patients with dysphagia (odds ratio = 1.493, 95% confidence interval = 1.000-2.228). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of the 17,668 respondents, 8,396 (47.5%) were men. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Clinical studies found that elevated cortisol was associated with poorer overall cognitive functioning, as well as with poorer episodic memory, executive functioning, language, spatial memory, processing speed, and social cognition; while in animals, glucocorticoid administration resulted in cognitive impairment and abnormal behavior. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 717 articles were identified, showing an upward trend in annual publications. 5 key findings →
Participants: 717 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found a significant correlation of CSF α-syn level with PM2.5 in urban participants. 4 key findings →
Participants: 933 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Metabolic dysfunction is a well-established feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD), evidenced by brain glucose hypometabolism that can be observed potentially decades prior to the development of AD symptoms. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean (SD) age of the 4,631 participants was 67.6 (4.89) years, and 2579 (55.7%) were women. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,943 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
46/100
CR was not associated with hippocampal GM MD and hippocampal GM volume. 5 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prevalence of CF was 24.3%. Cerebrovascular disease (OR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.44-3.97) and peripheral arterial disease (OR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.03-2.95) were significant risk factors, while higher education (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.94) and later diabetes onset (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98) were protective. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although a causal association remains to be determined, epidemiologic evidence suggests an association between hearing loss and increased risk of dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Several studies identified hearing loss as a risk factor for aging-related processes, including neurodegenerative diseases, as dementia and age-related hearing loss (ARHL). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both reserve measures were associated with cognitive trajectories [β × time (top tertile, ref.: bottom tertile) = 0.013; 95% CI: -0.126, -0.004 (residual-based) and 0.011; 95% CI: -0.001, 0.024, (activity-based)]. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From 1990 to 2021, global ADOD burden increased markedly in absolute terms. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia, with no means of cure or prevention. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The large majority of neuroimaging studies in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients have supported the idea that lifestyle factors may protect against the clinical manifestations of AD rather than influence AD neuropathological processes (the cognitive reserve hypothesis). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings indicate that the burden of dementia is rising in East and Southeast Asia, with women showing a higher burden across all indicators. 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 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 →