Of 8171 patients with late-life depression, 1443 (17.7 %) had TRLLD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,171 Evidence: moderate
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.
Sleep duration had an inverted U-shape relationship with cognitive scores (P <.001); and sleep quality had a positive linear relationship with cognitive scores (P <.001). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 10,768 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Modifiable risk factors identified in this study, especially those with high-level evidence, should be considered in dementia prevention. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
NPS were observed to be highly prevalent in AD patients. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In IPTW, we observed a decreased risk of terminated healthspan for healthy sleep behaviors such as 'sleep duration 7-8h/d' (Hazard ratio, HR = 0.93; 95 % confidence interval, CI: 0.92-0.96; P < 0.001); 'morningness' (HR = 0.95; 95%CI: 0.93-0.98; P < 0.01); 'napping' (HR = 0.93; 95%CI: 0.91-0.94; P < 0.001); 'easy getting up from bed' (HR = 0.91; 95%CI: 0.88-0.93; P < 0.001); and, 'never/rarely experience sleeplessness/insomnia' (HR = 0.94; 95%CI: 0.92-0.96; P < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 590 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher cognitive (HR: 0.91/SD, 95%CI: 0.84; 1.00) and brain reserve (HR: 0.88/SD, 95%CI: 0.77; 1.00) were associated with a lower risk of a depressive event after adjustment for baseline depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →
Participants: 105 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with LLD patients without OI impairment and normal controls, LLD patients with OI impairment exhibited increased FC between the left orbital frontal cortex (OFC) and left calcarine gyrus, between the left OFC and right lingual gyrus, between the right OFC and right rectus gyrus, and decreased FC between the right piriform cortex and right superior parietal lobule. 5 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Callosal AFD was lower in patients compared to controls. 5 key findings →
Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Major depression is more common and more severe in patients with vascular dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 124 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
39/100
Gene-proxy for Graves' disease was associated with an increased risk of major depressive disorder (P-value = 0.02), whereas gene-proxy for autoimmune thyroiditis was linked to a greater risk of bipolar disorder (P-value = 0.043). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ANCOVA (age and schooling as covariates) displayed statistically significant results with respect to CSF biomarkers' profiles regardless of the socio-demographic divergencies previously identified by one-way ANOVA. 5 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →