28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Brief instruments to screen for cognitive impairment can adequately detect dementia, but there is no empirical evidence that screening improves decision making. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia rates varied over 60% between groups, providing a comprehensive benchmark for the NAPA goal of reducing disparities. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18,778 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Obesity in middle age increases the risk of future dementia independently of comorbid conditions. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were 140,055 subjects in the 1998-1999 cohort and 146,328 in the 1999-2000 cohort, of which 55.5 percent and 59.7 percent, respectively, were immunized. 4 key findings →
Participants: 140,055 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prior work has suggested that obesity and overweight as measured by body mass index (BMI) increases risk of dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 10,136 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Females had higher rates of positive amyloid PET visual reads (63% vs. 59%, P < 0.001) and higher Centiloids (CLs; median 48.7 vs. 36.8, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 10,361 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We included 147,986 participants (Chinese [n = 6,034], Filipino [n = 4,649], Japanese [n = 3,099], South Asian [n = 996], non-Latino White [n = 133,208]); the mean baseline age ranged from 69 to 72 years, and the percentage of female participants ranged from 40% to 63% across groups. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,034 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Midlife CVRFs, especially hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and smoking, are common and associated with accelerated cognitive decline at midlife. 5 key findings →
Participants: 143 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The reference standard for amyloid-PET quantification requires structural MRI (sMRI) for preprocessing in both multi-site research studies and clinical trials. 4 key findings →
Participants: 740 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The late-life dementia risk index accurately stratified older adults into those with low, moderate, and high risk of developing dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 480 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Survival after dementia diagnosis differs by race/ethnicity, with shortest survival among whites and longest among Asian Americans. 3 key findings →
Participants: 23,032 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Midlife serum total cholesterol was associated with an increased risk of AD and VaD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 9,844 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Down syndrome (DS), or trisomy 21, is a common disorder associated with several complex clinical phenotypes. 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although previous research has shown that initiation of postmenopausal estrogen hormone therapy (HT) in late life increases risk of dementia, animal studies and some observational studies have suggested that midlife use of HT may be beneficial; however, this has not been rigorously investigated in large population-based studies. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,524 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among non-Latino Whites, ADI was associated with dementia incidence (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.15). 4 key findings →
Participants: 18,103 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In Fine-Gray models, dementia risk was higher in female than in male participants (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 1·89, 95% CI 1·30-2·76) and Black than Asian participants (sHR 1·75, 1·07-2·88), lower in APOE ε2 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 0·39, 0·17-0·88), and not significantly higher in APOE ε4 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 1·51, 0·92-2·47). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 805 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite differences in prevalence of APOE-ε4, its association with dementia risk was similar across Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and non-Latino White participants. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 46,325 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sex or gender differences in the risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) differ by world region, suggesting that there are potentially modifiable risk factors for intervention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ADRD prevalence was 5.5%. A total of 25,278 individuals had an incident ADRD code (rate: 1.2%) over the study period-nearly half during a hospital-based encounter. 5 key findings →
Participants: 25,278 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 9,361 SPRINT participants (mean age 67.1 ± 9.5 years, 36.7% female, 58.7% non-Hispanic White), 710 and 1,289 were new users of an ARB or ACEI. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 24 762 people with HIV and 494 963 people without HIV (86.9% men, 45.5% White, 23.1% Black, 20.3% Hispanic), incident dementia diagnoses declined from 2000 to 2023 in both people with and without HIV (-7.68 and -2.70% per period, respectively). 5 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 762 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The American Heart Association's LS7 score identified individuals who were vulnerable to multiple chronic nonvascular conditions. 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,506 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with white patients, black patients were less likely to have heart failure with preserved systolic function. 3 key findings →
Participants: 11,994 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among type 2 diabetic patients followed for 10 years, African Americans and Native Americans had a 40-60% greater risk of dementia compared with Asians, and risk was intermediate for non-Hispanic whites and Latinos. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2016, the UC Davis Latino Aging Research Resource Center and UC Davis Alzheimer's Disease Center brought together experts from across the country to consolidate current knowledge and identify future directions in aging and diversity research. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 →