We identified fifty studies (N=1,548,754). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,548,754 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Six prospective cohort studies with seven datasets, including 484,994 participants and a follow-up of 3.5 to 13.0 years, were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 484,994 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Vision impairment (VI) and eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma and cataract have been reported to be associated with cognitive impairment and dementia, however, to date, very little attempt has been made to collate and synthesizes such literature. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 232 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Electrophysiological and behavioral tests demonstrated strong correlation and accurate hearing impairment detection compared to PTA. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,071 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As the literature related to cognitive reserve (CR) in individuals with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is only emerging, a clear consensus on the relationship among CR proxies, brain status, and clinical performance has not been reached. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,423 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 5971 titles were reviewed and 60 studies were included in the analysis, 36 RCTs and 24 observational studies. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 5,971 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Regarding exposures to air pollution, there was convincing (class I) evidence for the association between long-term exposure to solvents and a higher incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment (odds ratio, OR=1.139), and highly suggestive (class II) evidence for the association between long-term exposure to some pollutants and higher risk for cognitive disorders (higher incidence of dementia with high vs. low levels of carbon monoxide, CO: OR=1.587; higher incidence of vascular dementia per 1 μg/m 3 increase of nitrogen oxides, NO x : hazard ratio, HR=1.004). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 195 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
77/100
Subjects experiencing multisensory impairments concurrent with visual impairment demonstrated a negative association with cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 500,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hearing loss is highly prevalent in dementia; however, people with dementia are less likely to use hearing aids consistently than people with intact cognition are. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
The cognitive reserve (CR) hypothesis posits that individuals can differ in how their brain function is disrupted by pathology associated with aging and neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive dysfunction is common in late life depression (LLD) and is a major risk factor for dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified 1,041 incident all-cause dementia cases in 4,283 participants over 37,102 person-years of follow-up. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,283 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study consisted of 20 400 patients (9264 female [45.4%]; 1576 Black [7.7%], 3944 Latinx [19.3%], and 10 480 White [51.4%]), including 5100 patients with mTBI (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years), 5100 patients with msTBI (median [IQR age, 35.0 [25.0-52.0] years), and 10 200 matched patients in the control group (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 400 Evidence: moderate
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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 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