We screened 3,809 articles and identified 31 eligible studies. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Our review supports that biofluid biomarker testing could be cost-effective to diagnose AD. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Regeneration of injured nerves is likely occurring in the peripheral nervous system, but not in the central nervous system. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Also, there are no licensed treatments specifically for VD.[3] What sets VD apart from other dementias are the following factors: The etiology of VD is clearly associated with brain tissue loss and dysfunction secondary to vascular pathophysiology in which hypertension seems to be the main reason.[4] While the exact cellular mechanisms are still not clear, it does imply that VD may potentially be largely preventable through better cardiovascular-metabolic risk modification. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Synaptic dysfunction is increasingly recognized as an early and biologically relevant component of α-synucleinopathies. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The devastating effects of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are yet to be ameliorated due to the absence of curative treatment options. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Animal studies indicate that Dang Gui Shao Yao San (DGSYS) may enhance cognitive function in VaD models through mechanisms such as antioxidation and the enhancement of cerebral blood flow. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research on cognitive impairment (CI) has increasingly focused on the central nervous system, identifying numerous neuronal targets and circuits of relevance for CI pathogenesis and treatment. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Pivotal trials demonstrated statistically significant but modest average slowing of decline: Clarity AD showed a 0.45-point between-group difference in CDR-SB worsening at 18 months, and TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 showed a 3.25-point iADRS difference in the low/medium-tau population at 76 weeks. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive decline and dementia represent major and growing global health challenges, driven largely by population aging and increased longevity. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
47/100
Bibliometric analysis is crucial in identifying research gaps and trends and guiding future studies to address unmet needs in understanding and modeling human physiology and pathology. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MODERN MEDICINE VERSUS LIFESTYLE MEDICINE Conventional biomedicine excels in acute care, diagnostics, therapeutics and emergencies. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Diabetes is a global health concern associated with complications such as cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia affects approximately 55 million people globally, with modifiable risk factors contributing significantly to its prevalence. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The review consistently identified high levels of perceived stress among dementia caregivers. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Living with dementia requires decision making about numerous topics including daily activities and advance care planning (ACP). 1 key finding →
Design: umbrella review Participants: 21 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Loneliness, distinct from social isolation, is a subjective sense of social disconnection exacerbating a public health crisis among older adults. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The results of the study and the submission of a manuscript for peer review are expected in June 2024. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
When systematically reviewed using the USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review method and an a priori established protocol, a common theme emerged: diets characterized by higher consumption of vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, fish, seafood, and unsaturated vegetable oils, alongside lower intake of red and processed meats and sugar-sweetened beverages, are consistently associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline and dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Annotation. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia in older adults, characterized by the accumulation of pathological proteins – beta-amyloid (Aβ) and hyperphosphorylated tau protein – resulting in neurodegeneration and cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of this literature review is to examine and contrast four dietary patterns to evaluate their influence on Alzheimer's prevention. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimers disease (AD) represents the most prevalent form of dementia, affecting millions worldwide and posing significant public health challenges. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
44/100
Fifty-three sources were included. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The potential role of aluminum (Al) in the onset and progression of Alzheimer disease (AD) remains among the most enduring and divisive controversies in environmental neurotoxicology. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Treatment options for dementia mainly comprise of symptomatic treatment, as no disease-modifying therapy currently exists that directly reduces the pathology. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 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.
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 27,780 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 →