27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Across the cohorts, each 10-year increase in BAI was associated with a 39% higher risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.21-1.59]; P Conclusions and relevance In this IPD meta-analysis, a higher sleep EEG-based BAI was associated with a higher risk of incident dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 7,105 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The largest cohort, the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer Disease Study (n = 3154), was the PET screening cohort used for a secondary prevention trial designed to slow cognitive decline associated with brain amyloidosis. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,154 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A distribution-based approach using data included in a systematic review approximated known MCIDs. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 12,449 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Intensive treatment was associated with a small but statistically significant greater decrease in hippocampal volume compared with standard treatment, consistent with the observation that intensive treatment is associated with greater decreases in total brain volume. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,267 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Nine phase 3 RCT cohorts from 8 eligible studies were identified, analyzing data from 6,315 patients. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,315 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Forty studies from 12 countries met our inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Being married is associated with reduced risk of dementia than widowed and lifelong single people, who are also underdiagnosed in routine clinical practice. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found a significant association between GBA1 mutation carrier status and DLB, with an odds ratio of 8.28 (95% CI, 4.78-14.88). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Current policy emphasises the importance of 'living well' with dementia, but there has been no comprehensive synthesis of the factors related to quality of life (QoL), subjective well-being or life satisfaction in people with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 198 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is an extensive body of qualitative literature on the experiences of community-dwelling individuals with dementia on receiving and adapting to a diagnosis of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,095 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Variation in service use among sites was most plausibly accounted for by stark differences in the extent of out-of-pocket expenses, and the ability of older people and their families to afford them. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17,944 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ACR is approximately 5-10% and most people with MCI will not progress to dementia even after 10 years of follow-up. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease dementia, jointly known as Lewy body dementia, are common neurodegenerative conditions. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,351 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Suboptimal sleep causes cognitive decline and probably accelerates Alzheimer's Disease (AD) progression. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,056 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is a progressive syndrome of global cognitive impairment with significant health and social care costs. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 9,422 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Periventricular white matter hyperintensities (WMH; PVWMH) and deep WMH (DWMH) are regional classifications of WMH and reflect proposed differences in cause. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 26,654 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The lack of strong association between brain beta-amyloid deposition and cognitive impairment has been a challenge for the Alzheimer's disease (AD) field. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 678 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disease, whose etiology results from a complex interplay between environmental and genetic factors. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 76 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found up to 270-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and RA, up to 160-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and UC, up to 180-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and T1D, and up to 175-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and CeD. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 192,886 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of cognitive training, specifically computerized cognitive training (CCT) and virtual reality cognitive training (VRCT), programs for individuals living with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia and therefore at high risk of cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Diet has been hypothesized to be associated with neurodegenerative disorders. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The search yielded 115 distinctly named non-genetic risk and protective factors with a significant association, with various strengths of evidence. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Measuring usability and UX in cognitive intervention technologies for older adults with MCI or dementia provides an integrated view that can contribute to their development according to the needs and characteristics of the target population. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings provide a current overview of published PC-interventions in dementia, which followed heterogeneous approaches under the PCC-concept. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 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.
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 →