30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Use of VR in hospitalized patients significantly reduces pain versus a control distraction condition. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the absence of clinical stroke, people with incident atrial fibrillation are likely to reach thresholds of cognitive impairment or dementia at earlier ages than people with no history of atrial fibrillation. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,150 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Depression is an accepted risk factor for dementia, but it is unclear if this relationship is causal. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 388 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
One hundred ninety-eight of 229 participants had WMH volumes available at both time-points. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 229 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 11 601 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.18 [9.41] years; 5569 male [48.0%]), 9145 (78.8%) were exposed to at least 1 ACE indicator, 4241 (36.6%) to at least 1 AAE indicator, and 3531 (30.4%) to both ACE and AAE markers. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 601 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During 3697 person-years of follow-up (mean per person, 3.6 years), dementia developed in 30 of the 1015 participants. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,015 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As the availability and quality of imaging techniques improve, doctors are identifying more patients with no history of transient ischaemic attack or stroke in whom imaging shows brain infarcts. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive impairment short of dementia affects nearly one in four community-dwelling elders and is a major risk factor for later development of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 351 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Incident AF was associated with an increased risk of dementia, independent of clinical stroke in an elderly population. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 435 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An increasing number of cardiometabolic diseases was dose-dependently associated with the decline in cognitive function score (one disease, β=-0·15 [95% CI -0·17 to -0·13]; two diseases, β=-0·37 [-0·40 to -0·34]; three diseases, β=-0·57 [-0·64 to -0·50]), with comorbid diabetes and stroke (β=-0·23 [-0·29 to -0·17]) contributing most strongly to cardiometabolic disease-associated cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 147 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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 30,580 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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