OHL was associated with greater risk of incident dementia in a multiethnic cohort. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,881 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Short-term mortality is increased in patients newly diagnosed with probable AD. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 327 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Diabetes mellitus may be associated with an increased risk of developing AD and may affect cognitive systems differentially. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 151 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A history of depression may confer an increased risk for later developing AD. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent studies have used non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), to increase dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) activity and, consequently, working memory (WM) performance. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We also identified several common challenges. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2016, of 63 038 019 individuals who were aged 65 years or older during the study period, we identified 1·0 million cases of Parkinson's disease and 3·4 million cases of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias based on primary and secondary diagnosis billing codes. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 19 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Strong conclusions remain elusive, although the weight of the evidence suggests an adverse association between PM2.5 and cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive impairment associated with aging is a serious and growing public health problem. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total, 6,683 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 6,683 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean age ± standard deviation was 64.6 ± 3.5 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 98 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A difference between subjects with and without obesity and memory scores was shown by t tests. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 165 cognitively normal participants of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA) Neuroimaging substudy, aged 55-92 years (mean baseline age = 76.4 years, 85 participants were male), received an average of 2.5 PET-PiB scans over an average interval of 2.6 (3.08 SD) years between first and last visits. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 165 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study examined whether cognitive reserve (CR) alters the relationship between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of cortical thickness and risk of progression from normal cognition to the onset of clinical symptoms associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 232 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the incident depression group, there was a mild decline in cognitive scores from baseline to the visit before depression onset compared with the never-depressed group. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both objective and perceived social isolations were associated with future cognitive decline and increase risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 23 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Across 3544 participants, ≥65 years of age, with no diagnosed dementia-related disorders, the depression symptom everything was an effort showed high expected influence across all time points. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,544 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Late-life depression remains an underdiagnosed clinical entity, mainly because the presence of cognitive impairment in the elderly leads clinicians to suspect dementia rather than depression. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 72 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The PSI was higher in Kaohsiung and compared with Pingtung patients, Kaohsiung patients were exposed to higher average annual concentrations of CO, NO2, PM10, and SO2. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 704 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Insomnia in elderly people has traditionally been regarded as inevitable and trivial. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 705 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of the 204 patients enrolled in the study, re-review after as many as 5 years of follow-up resulted in a final clinical classification of 188 with probable AD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The diagnostic criteria continued to result in rather frequent diagnosis of comorbidity. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 397 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aortic stiffness increases with age and vascular risk factor exposure and is associated with increased risk for structural and functional abnormalities in the brain. 5 key findings →
Participants: 668 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher levels of VRFs were associated with poorer brain health across grey and white matter macrostructure and microstructure. 5 key findings →
Participants: 9,722 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence strongly supports the important role of insulin resistance in cognitive decline and dementia and suggests that insulin sensitizers may protect against cognitive decline in diabetic and pre-diabetic individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →