The final analytic sample included n = 2334 participants. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,334 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Dual impairment, but not single impairment in hearing and vision was associated with a higher risk of dementia (HR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.27). 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,579 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In asymptomatic individuals, brain volumes of hippocampal subfields and of the parahippocampal cortex were numerically larger in stage 1 compared to HCs, whereas the opposite was the case in individuals with SCD. 5 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
In 2017, the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care included air pollution in its list of potential risk factors for dementia; in 2018, the Lancet Commission on Pollution concluded that the evidence for a causal relationship between fine particulate matter (PM) and dementia is encouraging. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although the discovery of the critical role of α-synuclein (α-syn) in the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease (PD) is now twenty-five years old, it still represents a milestone in PD research. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) is commonly caused by vascular injuries in cerebral large and small vessels and is a key driver of age-related cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increasing neighborhood disadvantage was associated with increased risk of EHR-documented dementia diagnosis or dementia-related death (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.76, 95% confidence interval = 1.69-1.84) after adjusting for age and sex. 4 key findings →
Participants: 253,421 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher ISI score was associated with greater average levels of CSF Aβ42 (per point: 30.7 pg/mL, 95% CI: 4.17-57.3, p = 0.023), as was higher WASO (per 10 min: 136 pg/mL, 95% CI: 48-223, p = 0.002) and more awakenings (per 5:123 pg/mL, 95% CI = 55-192, p < 0.001). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 63 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cross-sectionally, participants with ≥3 SI had twice the prevalence of ECI (prevalence ratio = 2.10, p = 0.02). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CR varied across five cognitive assessments and was greater in female participants, associated with longer survival, and weakly associated with educational attainment or APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →
Participants: 844 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We examined factors associated with self-reported medication nonadherence in well-characterized community-based cohort of older adults. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,164 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prevalence of cognitive impairment, MCI, and dementia among participants aged 60 years and older were 21.48% (95% CI, 19.90-23.10), 15.70% (95% CI, 14.30-17.10), and 5.77 (95% CI, 4.90-6.70), respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,233 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, and diabetes were overrepresented in AA participants, but were not associated with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 261 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One of the most common medical diseases is metabolic syndrome (MetS), which encompasses diabetes and obesity. 1 key finding →
Participants: 148 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of dementia for a 5-μg/m3 increase in NO2 was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.14); the adjusted HR of dementia for a 1-μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 was 1.10 (1.04-1.17). 5 key findings →
Participants: 447 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During a median 11.7 years follow-up, 5 905 incident cases of all-cause dementia were identified. 5 key findings →
Participants: 459 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Studies examining associations between greenspace and Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) outcomes are rapidly on the rise, yet no known literature reviews have summarized the racialized/ethnic group and geographic variation of those published studies. 1 key finding →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A higher degree of neighborhood disadvantage may contribute to the excess risk of MCI or dementia found among AA. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,733 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hearing loss is an important risk factor for the development of dementia, particularly Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The cluster analysis identified 3 distinct groups: Group 1 was low resource/high distress (n = 215); Group 2 was high resource/low distress (n = 248); and Group 3 was low resource/low distress (n = 353; Figure 1). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants identified as non-Hispanic White (50%), non-Hispanic Black (30%), or Hispanic (13%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
46/100
In total, 104 incident dementia and 159 incident dementia/CIND cases were identified during the 10 years of follow-up. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Geographical disparities in mortality among Alzheimer`s disease (AD) patients have been reported and complex sociodemographic and environmental determinants of health (SEDH) may be contributing to this variation. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The important functions of sleep include cleaning processes such as the elimination of metabolic products, e.g., amyloid, via the glymphatic system; consolidation of memory; and anabolic regulation of metabolism. 5 key findings →
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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