Overall, cumulative incidence was uniformly higher in NACC than in the population-based cohorts. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,073 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
59/100
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of progressive intellectual failure in aged humans. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) constitutes one of the strongest environmental risk factors for several progressive neurodegenerative disorders of cognitive impairment and dementia that are characterized by the pathological accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau (p-Tau). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Based on the systematic review, evidence suggests that treating hearing loss in persons with cognitive impairment can have benefits to communication and quality of life. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Even when adjusted for age at onset, symptom duration, and other demographic variables, APOEε2 is associated with milder AD pathology and less severe antemortem cognitive impairment compared to APOEε3 and ε4 alleles, suggesting a relative neuroprotective effect of APOEε2 in AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
55/100
BackgroundWhile cortical atrophy has been widely studied in dementia, emerging evidence highlights the role of subcortical degeneration, particularly in deep gray matter structures such as the thalamus, claustrum, and basal nuclei, in both Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 380 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Recently, ~16% of participants in an anti-Aβ passive immunotherapy trial for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) had a negative baseline amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scan. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In their study, Chen et al 1 examined the association between apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and longitudinal cognitive trajectories among middle-aged and older East Asian adults participating in the Healthy Aging Longitudinal Study of Taiwan (HALST).Although sporadic late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) is polygenic, APOE remains the strongest genetic determinant of AD risk, with carriers of the APOE ε4 allele having increased odds of developing AD dementia in a dose-dependent manner compared with APOE ε3 homozygotes. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 21 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All concurrent validity correlations followed the expected directionality, with 19/21 inter-scale correlations in the total sample reaching statistical significance (p<0.05), and 17/21 reaching at least a low correlation (0.3). 4 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite comprising the largest segment of the sexual minority population and experiencing unique stressors and health disparities, bi+ dementia caregivers remain underrepresented in health and caregiving research. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 125 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Bisexual caregivers reported more stress, albeit better health than gay caregivers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 286 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Probable dementia caregiving predicted worse sleep quality, which mediated the relationship with higher depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,422 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia (AD/ADRD) face significant emotional and logistical challenges that place them at heightened risk for stress, anxiety, and depression. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) are progressive neurodegenerative conditions that impair memory, thought processes, and functioning. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia disproportionately affects Hispanic/Latino caregivers, and while some interventions exist, their consideration of intersectional factors remains unclear. 1 key finding →
Participants: 41 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Study 1 showed that each person's financial strain was associated with their own greater depressive symptoms. 2 key findings →
Participants: 147 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our analysis revealed a diverse range of topics reflecting community members' varying needs and concerns of individuals affected by AD/ADRD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
37/100
Most persons with dementia in the U.S. die in long-term care communities. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Five themes emerged. Both older adults and adult children had partial knowledge of dementia and were able to list learning new things and social activities as cognitively stimulating activities. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 27,380 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 →