Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a priority health problem with a high cost to society and a large consumption of medical and social resources. 5 key findings →
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.
The study of factors, across species, that allow some individuals to age more successfully than others has important implications for individual wellbeing as well as health education, policy and intervention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The loss of olfactory stimulation correlates well with at least 68 widely differing neurological disorders, including depression, and we raise the possibility that this relationship may be causal. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive reserve (CR) is the ability to preserve cognitive functions in the presence of brain pathology. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Cognitively stimulating environments are thought to be protective of cognitive decline and onset of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) through the development of cognitive reserve (CR). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When growing older, many people are faced with cognitive deterioration, which may even amount to a form of dementia at some point in time. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Physical Activity and Mental Health in the Elderly Abstract. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive disorders are frequently found during late-life depression (LLD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article provides a current review of the literature examining caffeine use in older adults. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Coupled with aging, chronic stress experienced by dementia caregivers often leads to deteriorating health. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nursing leaders have a responsibility to promote and facilitate social engagement and connectedness to mitigate social isolation in long-term care (LTC). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Social connection is an understudied target of intervention for the health of individuals providing care for a family member with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hearing loss is one of the largest modifiable risk factors for developing dementia, accounting for up to 9% of the overall modifiable risk. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older adults are at an increased risk of loneliness. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
DEP exposure at 100μg/m3 for 5 h, but not lower doses, caused oxidative damage, complement and microglia activation in cerebral cortex and corpus callosum. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The environmental role in disease progression has been appreciated for decades; however, understanding how airborne toxicant exposure can affect organs beyond the lungs is an underappreciated area of scientific inquiry. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) has been a common public health problem, which is associated with central nervous system dysfunction according to large-scale epidemiological studies. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings suggest neighborhood deprivation is an important risk factor of mortality among older adults with ADRD while accounting for individuals’ demographic and clinical characteristics. 3 key findings →
Participants: 31,218 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This manuscript examines the research questions being addressed in prevention research by characterizing the distribution and trends of study designs included in primary and secondary prevention research supported by the National Institutes of Health through grants and cooperative agreements, together with the types of prevention research, populations, rationales, exposures, and outcomes associated with each type of design. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Obesity leads to chronic, systemic inflammation and can lead to insulin resistance (IR), β-cell dysfunction, and ultimately type 2 diabetes (T2D). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total, twenty elements appear to be essential for the correct functioning of the human body, half of which are metals and half are non-metals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Exposure to particulate matter (PM) pollution damages the human brain. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Parkinson's disease, as well as other neurodegenerative disorders, are primarily characterized by pathological accumulation of proteins, inflammation, and neuron loss. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Each year’s cognitive functions were linked to the prior year’s food insecurity values. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 11 case reports met criteria for inclusion. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 56 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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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