27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among 2 184 847 Danish citizens aged between 65 and 95 years, there were 3024 individuals with DLB (mean [SD] age, 78 [6], 1894 [62.6%] male) and 3808 with PDD (mean [SD] age, 78 [6], 2400 [63.0%] male) who were matched with 30 240 and 38 080 controls, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 3,024 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this cohort study of US Medicare beneficiaries, dual sensory impairment was prevalent in older adults and associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,562 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, hearing loss was positively associated with a risk of dementia, especially in patients aged 45 to 64 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,135 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 27 857 participants (mean [SD] age at baseline, 61 [10] years; 15 747 female participants [56.5%]; 19 249 non-Hispanic White participants [69.1%]), 4105 (14.7%) developed dementia during the follow-up period (mean [SD], 10.2 [5.6] years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 857 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study consisted of 20 400 patients (9264 female [45.4%]; 1576 Black [7.7%], 3944 Latinx [19.3%], and 10 480 White [51.4%]), including 5100 patients with mTBI (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years), 5100 patients with msTBI (median [IQR age, 35.0 [25.0-52.0] years), and 10 200 matched patients in the control group (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 400 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Of 3037 participants, a weighted 57.8% (raw count, 1345) were younger than 75 years, 56.2% (raw count, 1777) were women, and most (84.9% [raw count, 2268]) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,037 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study included 722 911 hospitalization episodes, of which 66 676 were related to patients with ADRD (mean [SD] age, 83.4 [8.6] years; 42 439 [63.6%] female) and 656 235 were related to patients without ADRD (mean [SD] age, 66.0 [15.4] years; 351 246 [53.5%] female). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 722 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 60 860 adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity were included, with 30 430 each in the GLP-1RA group (mean [SD] age, 57.9 [9.9] years; 50.2% female) and the other antidiabetic drug group (mean [SD] age, 58.0 [10.8] years; 51.4% female) after propensity score matching. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 860 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 844 eligible individuals were consecutively approached, 294 consented to participate, and 204 completed the study (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [5.1] years; 127 women [62.3%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 127 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
Among 9239 eligible respondents, 5258 (57.7%) were female and 1210 (9.1%) were Black, 574 (4.7%) were Hispanic, and 7297 (84.4%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 110 participants (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [4.6] years; 68 female [61.8%]) were randomized to the experimental group (n = 55) and the sham group (n = 55) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 55 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this cohort of 2022 insulin-treated older adults with diabetes and ADRD (1011 CGM users and 1011 SMBG users; mean [SD] age, 76.4 [6.7] years; 1133 female [56.0%]), CGM use was significantly associated with lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96) and mortality (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48-0.67) compared with SMBG use. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 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.
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 →