27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both increased sympathetic activity and decreased parasympathetic activity seem to be associated with a worse performance in the cognitive domains considered, in the absence of dementia and severe cardiovascular diseases or other medical and psychiatric diseases. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 19,431 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
AF is independently associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 77,668 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
FDA-approved anti-Aβ mabs have a role in slowing disease progression in patients with AD, at the cost of an increased probability of side effects. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 4,471 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Intelligence is highly heritable 1 and a major determinant of human health and well-being 2 . 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 269,867 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Collecting cases for case-control genetic association studies can be time-consuming and expensive. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 116,196 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Due to the small number of studies and heterogeneity in study design and outcomes, the association between DNA methylation age and age-related disease and longevity is inconclusive. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 41,607 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The efficacy and safety of anti-amyloid mAbs in AD may differ based on patients' demographic and genetic factors. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 5,633 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
More than 25% of the U.S. population aged ≥ 65 years has diabetes mellitus (hereafter referred to as diabetes),1 and the aging of the overall population is a significant driver of the diabetes epidemic. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this meta-analysis of the association of physical activity with cognitive decline, physical activity was associated with better late-life cognition, but the association was weak. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 341,471 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The first single-stage individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials provides evidence to support benefits of antihypertensive treatment in late-mid and later life to lower the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,008 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified 22 hospital-based and eight population-based eligible cohorts (7511 patients) described in 73 papers. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,511 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The global prevalence of MCI among community dwellers is over 15% and is affected by age, gender, education level and region of study sites. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 242,804 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Older people with SMC but no objective complaints are twice as likely to develop dementia as individuals without SMC. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 15,009 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Good sleep is essential for health, yet associations between sleep and dementia risk remain incompletely understood. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,946 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Late-onset Alzheimer's disease is a prevalent age-related polygenic disease that accounts for 50-70% of dementia cases. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is a premalignant expansion of mutated hematopoietic stem cells. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,362 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All autonomic networks were positively associated with Aβ42/40 ratio and remained so after adjustment for age, sex, and APOE4 carrier status. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 122 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 24 published articles that included 2397 AD and 3242 MCI patients were analysed. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,397 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Iron deposition in the brain is a prominent feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 24,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disease. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 74,046 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventy-one studies were included for review, representing a total of 6757 patients (2350 AD, 793 MCI, 2902 healthy controls (HC), and 841 others with a range of other neurodegenerative diagnoses). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 6,757 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The FDA approved lecanemab for Alzheimer's disease in January 2023 which acts as a novel disease-modifying anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) human monoclonal antibody and is administered intravenously. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 2,729 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 27,780 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →