We analyze the impact of a temporary shock to food supply on households’ dietary choices. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
16/100
We examine the scaling of Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs) of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program in 2018. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease,* the most common cause of dementia, affects an estimated 6.5 million persons aged ≥65 years in the United States (1). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Chronic pain (i.e., pain lasting ≥3 months) is a debilitating condition that affects daily work and life activities for many adults in the United States and has been linked with depression (1), Alzheimer disease and related dementias (2), higher suicide risk (3), and substance use and misuse (4). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Living in locations with higher PM2.5 (per interquartile range [IQR]=3.17μg/m3) or NO2 (per IQR=6.63ppb) was associated with greater MTL atrophy (βPM2.5 = -0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]=[-0.41,-0.18]; βNO2 =-0.12, 95%CI=[-0.23,-0.02]). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 627 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Wearable devices repeatedly measure activity, sleep, and nocturnal physiology, but their value for three-class cognitive screening remains uncertain. 1 key finding →
Participants: 174 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Many biological quantities in omics are inherently periodic or directional, including circadian phase, cell-cycle position, and cellular orientation. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA: n=9,473, median age 64, range 50 to ≥90), linear mixed-effects models examined age-specific differences in cognitive change (recall and fluency) associated with sleep duration, difficulty falling asleep, nocturnal awakenings, incorporating sleep-by-age-by-time interactions, with initial adjustment for sociodemographic factors and further adjustment for health and lifestyle factors. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 9,473 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Insomnia disorder affects approximately 10–20% of adults and is usually chronic. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of total 8,321 participants, 24.88% (2,070) developed cognitive impairment during a 10-year follow-up. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 8,321 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants were aged 60–94 years, with a mean age of 78.5 ± 7.9 years, and 45.7% were women. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sleep disturbance in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), particularly the reduction of slow wave sleep (SWS), has been proposed as a novel therapeutic target, with disease-modifying potential. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterised by progressive accumulation of misfolded proteins and failure of cellular clearance pathways, particularly the autophagy–lysosomal system. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings indicate that HFOs likely arise from different neuronal populations and are generated through distinct mechanisms in these two models. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Controlling for baseline differences, treatment of OSA improved delayed recall and may reduce the slope of memory decline in Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 86 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sleeping more than one’s usual average the night before testing was associated with better delayed memory ( β = 0.03, p = 0.02), while no between-person sleep effects emerged. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 329 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Specific disease clusters involving diabetes, oral disease, sensory impairment, and osteoporosis were associated with suspected dementia and neuropsychiatric heterogeneity, supporting integrated multimorbidity-oriented screening and care. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,597 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are associated with increased risk of neurodegenerative disease, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD); however, the mechanisms by which TBI promotes AD pathogenesis remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Sleep disruption is common in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Participants: 16 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
DORA-22 and MK-1064 rescued tauopathy-related sleep loss, and reduced agitation-like locomotion and stress-induced hyperthermic responses. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings indicate that the cognitive impact of hearing loss depends on structural resources, highlighting the need to integrate sensory health and social context in dementia prevention efforts. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,397 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Our findings reveal marked geographic variation in dementia risk factors, highlighting the need for region-specific prevention strategies. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ABR latencies, rather than amplitudes, showed significant associations with regional gray matter volumes. 5 key findings →
Participants: 88 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All Big Five domains had prospective associations with multiple dementia risk factors and with cognitive impairment, cognitive function, and self-reported memory. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study evaluated hearing loss (HL) as a potential early indicator of dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 16,270 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 →