27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
28 studies (total n = 1337 participants, average age 79-90 years) were included in the systematic review, of which 21 could be meta-analyzed. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,337 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine the association of the apolipoprotein E ( ApoE ) gene with exceptional longevity (EL) ( i.e ., reaching 100+ years) by identifying possible unequal distribution of alleles/genotypes in the common variants ε2, ε3, and ε4 among centenarians and younger population. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,776 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Antihypertensive use was associated with decreased AD but not non-AD risk throughout late life. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 31,250 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this meta-analysis, the usage of hearing restorative devices by participants with hearing loss was associated with a 19% decrease in hazards of long-term cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 137,484 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 49,227 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APOE ɛ4, the most significant genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), may mask effects of other loci. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,203 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We aimed to present the first detailed analysis of the global prevalence, mortality, and overall burden of dementia as captured by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016, and highlight the most important messages for clinicians and neurologists. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 2846 articles identified, 94 studies were eligible, with up to 14 529 participants for WMH, 16 012 participants for BI, 15 693 participants for CMB, and 4587 participants for PVS. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 529 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings suggest that risk factors associated with ADRDs have changed over the past decade and differ based on sex and race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 378 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Main results We included two trials with 26,340 participants aged 40 to 82 years of whom 11,610 were aged 70 or older. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 26,340 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our analysis suggests that previous estimates of dementia burden, based on smaller datasets, might have underestimated the burden of dementia in China. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 340,247 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 8,257 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence from well-planned, representative epidemiological surveys is scarce in many regions. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found no data on our primary outcome of global cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,183 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet seems a promising approach to preserve brain function during aging. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found no studies on our primary outcome of global cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,183 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two reviewers independently screened the search results and reference lists of the identified papers and related reviews. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Few nutritional interventions were found to convincingly improve cognition of individuals with MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 500 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 21,788 citations were screened, and seven studies of diverse quality were included in the review, comprising 1,691 participants. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,691 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, mental and neurological disorders were associated with a significant high risk of infection (pre-existing mental: OR 1·67, 95% CI 1·12-2·49; and pre-existing neurological: 2·05, 1·58-2·67), illness severity (mental: pre-existing, 1·40, 1·25-1·57; sequelae, 4·85, 2·53-9·32; neurological: pre-existing, 1·43, 1·09-1·88; sequelae, 2·17, 1·45-3·24), and mortality (mental: pre-existing, 1·47, 1·26-1·72; neurological: pre-existing, 2·08, 1·61-2·69; sequelae, 2·03, 1·66-2·49) from COVID-19. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 149 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite older racial and ethnic minorities (REMs) being more likely to develop dementia they are underrepresented in clinical trials focused on neurological disorders. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 100,748 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MCR is associated with an increased risk of falls. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,204 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Early identification and management of OD should consider geriatric syndromes and neurogenic comorbidities to prevent malnutrition and pneumonia and reduce mortality in adults aged 60 years and older. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 31,488 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 99 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 →