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
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
MCR is common in older adults, and is a strong and early risk factor for cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 26,802 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Further investigations are needed, especially trials providing stronger interventions (such as exercise training and a controlled diet) and also embracing the sensorial domain of IC. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,445 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We aimed to inform planning by assessing intrinsic capacity prevalence, by characterising the target group, and by validating the general approach-testing hypotheses that DIC was consistently associated with higher risks of incident dependence and death. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 17,031 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No significant association was found between MHT use and risk of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,016,055 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Reducing the risk of dementia can halt the worldwide increase of affected people. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At the First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia in March, 2015, 160 delegates, including representatives from 80 WHO Member States and four UN agencies, agreed on a call for action to reduce the global burden of dementia by fostering a collective effort to advance research. 5 key findings →
Participants: 201 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
On the eve of the 2012 summer Olympic Games, the first Lancet Series on physical activity established that physical inactivity was a global pandemic, and global public health action was urgently needed. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The huge costs of dementia worldwide place enormous strains on care systems and families alike.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease was responsible for 4.9% of the deaths in this elderly cohort. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,670 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
499·2 million new cases of preventable major NCDs would occur globally by 2030 if the prevalence of physical inactivity does not change, with direct health-care costs of INT$520 billion. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sensory abilities decline with age. More than 5% of the world's population, approximately 360 million people, have disabling hearing loss. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All low-income countries and 59% of the middle-income countries in our sample were found to have far fewer professionals than they need to deliver a core set of mental health interventions. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 42 participants (median age: 71 years, 66.7% female), 26 (61.9%) were classified as progressors. 5 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
31/100
That word allows us to occupy the high moral ground but to no avail. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →