In total, 30 studies were included comprising 14,997 subjects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 14,997 Evidence: low
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.
Sleep disorders, particularly insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea, are increasingly implicated as significant contributors to cognitive decline, dementia, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The cohort study revealed that persistent HI significantly increased the risk of heart disease (P < 0.001, HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.31-2.03), stroke (P 0.004, HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.16-2.18), chronic lung disease (P 0.002, HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.17-1.99), and emotional, nervous, or psychiatric problems (P 0.016, HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.14-3.60). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 504,307 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration with neuronal inclusions of the TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (FTLD-TDP) is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder with only a limited number of risk loci identified. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 985 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 8171 patients with late-life depression, 1443 (17.7 %) had TRLLD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,171 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pooled HRs indicated depression present in late-life (HR 1.95, 95% CI: 1.68–2.26; I 2 = 77.5%) and midlife (HR 1.56, 95% CI: 1.12–2.18; I 2 = 97.5%) significantly increased risk of all-cause dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 901,762 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 19 reviews containing 37 meta-analyses were included umbrella review. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fifty-nine primary studies met all criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The total effect of cholesterol on risk of AD was significant and heterogeneous. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our search yielded 182 meta-analyses meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 59 were selected to calculate DALY-weighted risk factors for a composite outcome. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
In total, 42 eligible studies were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 5,699 participants (mean age: 70±8 years), we observed total PM2.5 concentrations ranging from 16 to 206 μg/m3. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,699 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Trajectories of systolic BP were separated markedly around 25 to 45 years of age, with the group below the median of cognition score having higher levels of systolic BP than the group above the median. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 912 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
68/100
At study entry, the mean (SD) age of the participants was 70 (SD, 8.9) years and 41% were males. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 555 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 342 recommendations (285 supported by research data and 57 good practice points) and 40 key messages have been formulated. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
65/100
Social isolation was significantly associated with reduced cognitive ability (pooled effect = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.08, -0.05), with consistently negative effects across memory, orientation, and executive ability. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 101,581 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After a median follow-up time of 14.3 (7.9-20.0) years, dementia was recorded in 530 (1.2%) individuals with type 1 diabetes and 1,867 (0.9%) age-, sex-, and county-matched control individuals (mean baseline age 33.0 [14.0] years). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 43,440 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a mean follow-up of 7.9 years, 694 incident dementia cases occurred. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 82,391 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.009). Significant differences in annualized changes in these FA and MD values were found depending on the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes and smoking. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,471 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study classified preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) using cognitive screening, neighborhood deprivation via the area deprivation index (ADI), and sociodemographic and genetic risk factors. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,792 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 162 studies were included, with 88 (54.3%) exploring potential risk factors and 74 (45.7%) examining specific risk factors. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 162 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 733 participants (mean age 82.5 ± 2.9 years), 164 (22.4%) developed MCI and 93 (12.7%) developed dementia by the follow-up visit. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 321 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
63/100
The sample included 3 329 977 beneficiaries (2 126 290 [63.9%] female, 33 887 [1.0%] Asian, 354 771 [10.7%] Black, 61 515 [1.8%] Hispanic, 2 831 391 [85.0%] White, and 891 815 [26.8%] dual eligible for Medicaid). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
A total of 60 860 adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity were included, with 30 430 each in the GLP-1RA group (mean [SD] age, 57.9 [9.9] years; 50.2% female) and the other antidiabetic drug group (mean [SD] age, 58.0 [10.8] years; 51.4% female) after propensity score matching. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 860 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
- 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 →