A total of 57 articles were included in the review, including 3182 participants. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,182 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common multifactorial neurodegenerative disease among elderly people. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 140 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Autopsy measures of Alzheimer's disease neuropathology have been leveraged as endophenotypes in previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,701 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified and validated five novel gene associations in cortical brain tissue ( PRKAG1 , C3orf62 , LYSMD4 , ZNF439 , SLC11A2 ) and six genes proximal to known AD-related GWAS loci (Blood: MYBPC3 ; Brain: MTCH2 , CYB561 , MADD , PSMA5 , ANXA11 ). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,683 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The analysis included 8 randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6547 participants. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,547 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nineteen randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6918 participants were included. rTMS was significantly more effective than placebo/sham stimulation. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,918 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventeen RCTs, comprising 7214 participants, investigated the efficacy of the following drugs: Donepezil, Rivastigmine, Galantamine, Memantine, Ginkgo biloba extract (EGb), Atorvastatin-calcium and Vitamin B in the treatment of AD. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,214 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Exercise interventions were performed 3.4 ± 1.4 days per week at moderate intensity (3.7 ± 0.6 metabolic equivalents) for 45.2 ± 17.0 minutes per session for 18.6 ± 10.0 weeks and consisted primarily of aerobic exercise (65%). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,145 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
Among the 23 studies, 10 (43.5%) focused on mobile health apps, 8 (34.8%) on video consultations, and 5 (21.7%) on remote monitoring tools. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The crude incidence rate was 16 (CI: 13-20) cases per 1,000 person-years (pyr) with 17 (CI: 12-21) per 1,000 pyr for females and 14 (CI: 9-21) per 1,000 pyr for males. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 748 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This 2026 update is an even larger follow-up to the 2022 Bellenguez GWAS, combining data from nearly 1 million people. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 978,514 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
81/100
Pooling data on more than 600,000 people, this meta-analysis found that people who reported feeling lonely had about a 30% higher risk of developing dementia overall, and even higher risk for vascular dementia specifically, even after accounting for depression and objective social isolation. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 608,561 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Further studies are warranted to develop and refine the specific MIND diet for different populations. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 224,049 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The core biomarkers differentiated Alzheimer's disease from controls with good performance: CSF T-tau (average ratio 2·54, 95% CI 2·44-2·64, p Interpretation The core CSF biomarkers of neurodegeneration (T-tau, P-tau, and Aβ42), CSF NFL, and plasma T-tau were strongly associated with Alzheimer's disease and the core biomarkers were strongly associated with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 699 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a public health priority for the 21st century. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 74,046 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In analyses that addressed bias due to reverse causation, physical inactivity was not associated with all-cause dementia or Alzheimer's disease, although an indication of excess dementia risk was observed in a subgroup of physically inactive individuals who developed cardiometabolic disease. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 404 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia is an important public health goal. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 11,140 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Only RCTs were included in this study; there were eleven studies ( n = 2609 participants) of the Mediterranean diet, seven studies ( n = 313) of the ketogenic diet and one study ( n = 37) of the MIND diet. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 2,609 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This systematic review suggests that CCT interventions could improve global cognitive function in patients with MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,059 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We aimed to synthesise data on risk factors for incident delirium and where possible conduct meta-analysis of these. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 411 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
81/100
Community-dwelling older adults with pain were more likely to have fallen in the past 12 months and to fall again in the future. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 17,926 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that cognitive impairment and delirium are major issues in CABG patients which require specific attention. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 91,829 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 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.
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 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 →