Enrollment was undertaken between May 18, 2021, and September 8, 2023. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A total of 95 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 74 with 2 760 379 unique patients were also included in 5-year age band meta-analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 95 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Observationally, CVDs were associated with risk of all incident outcomes in meta-analyses, with hazard ratios up to 7.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.20, 7.92). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,373 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a meta-analysis of 2 one-sample MR studies, the odds ratio (OR) for 1-SD higher BMI in predicting vascular-related dementia was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.13-2.35). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 102 607 individuals in the study, 56 559 (55%) were women (median age, 58 years [IQR, 47-67 years]). 5 key findings →
Participants: 607 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
High neutrophil counts, an easily accessible inflammation biomarker, are associated with atherosclerosis in experimental studies. 4 key findings →
Participants: 101 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The past 3 decades have been characterized by an exponential growth in knowledge and advances in the clinical treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
49/100
Among 104 537 individuals, the absolute 10-year risk of Alzheimer disease in 3017 women and men who were carriers of the APOE ɛ44 genotype was, respectively, 7% and 6% at age 60-69 years, 16% and 12% at age 70-79 years, and 24% and 19% at age 80 years and older. 1 key finding →
Participants: 537 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 43 trials of 327,264 participants with 42,016 major adverse cardiovascular events where included. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
47/100
The study is a validation study of two psychogeriatric depression rating scales, The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 36 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
On continuous scales, lipoprotein(a) levels were not associated with the risk of Alzheimer's disease or vascular-related dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 452 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia is one of the major causes of disability in later life, and ischemic heart disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. 2 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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 →