Seventeen studies (5373 patients) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,373 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Implementation facilitation that engages clinicians under typical practice conditions can enhance evidence-based team processes; its effect on self-reported overall population health status was negligible, although health status improved for individuals with complex conditions and hospitalization rate declined. 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,596 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results provide further support for behavioral interventions for persons with MCI. 4 key findings →
Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this clinical trial, older adults with MCI receiving aerobic-resistance exercises with sequential computerized cognitive training significantly improved cognition, although some results were inconsistent. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
81/100
In this study, low plasma Aβ42/40 was associated with more pronounced decline in cognitive function (measured by multiple outcomes) over time. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 448 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
80/100
In this meta-analysis of the association of physical activity with cognitive decline, physical activity was associated with better late-life cognition, but the association was weak. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 341,471 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Good sleep is essential for health, yet associations between sleep and dementia risk remain incompletely understood. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,946 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The variability in disease onset was compared with that of autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 77 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
78/100
Of 19 114 randomized participants, 16 855 (88.2%) had longitudinal gait and cognitive data for inclusion in this study (mean [SD] age, 75.0 [4.4] years; 9435 women [56.0%], 7558 participants [44.8%] with 12 or more years of education). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,558 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 2 184 847 Danish citizens aged between 65 and 95 years, there were 3024 individuals with DLB (mean [SD] age, 78 [6], 1894 [62.6%] male) and 3808 with PDD (mean [SD] age, 78 [6], 2400 [63.0%] male) who were matched with 30 240 and 38 080 controls, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 3,024 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A large fraction of dementia cases in the US were associated with potentially modifiable risk factors, especially for Black and Hispanic individuals. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Age, sex, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) are the strongest risk factors for late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,592 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 6321 participants (mean [SE] age, 56.1 [0.18] years at visit 1; n = 4077 women [57.8%]) were included. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,077 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
76/100
The findings of this cohort study suggest that smartphones could offer a feasible, reliable, valid, and scalable solution for remote evaluations of FTLD and may improve early detection. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 258 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this cohort study of US Medicare beneficiaries, dual sensory impairment was prevalent in older adults and associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,562 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 34 349 participants, 26 088 who self-reported Black or White race, were free of stroke and dementia, and had covariate data at or before the first cognitive assessment were included for analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 349 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
75/100
There were 132 846 individuals (mean [SD] age, 80.4 [7.6] years; 61.8% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.5 [4.6]) with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 1, 159 419 individuals (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [7.6] years; 59.7% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.6 [4.7]) with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 2, and 92 328 individuals with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 3 (mean [SD] age, 80.9 [7.7] years; 58.5% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.5 [4.7]). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 846 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A lower proportion of patients with cancer had palliative care initiated in the home (16 088 [14.5%]) compared with patients with chronic organ failure (6904 [32.8%]; absolute difference, -18.3%) or dementia (3922 [27.9%]; absolute difference, -13.4%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 709 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, hearing loss was positively associated with a risk of dementia, especially in patients aged 45 to 64 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,135 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this cohort study of a Korean population, decreased risk of dementia was associated with maintaining mild to moderate alcohol consumption, reducing alcohol consumption from a heavy to a moderate level, and the initiation of mild alcohol consumption, suggesting that the threshold of alcohol consumption for dementia risk reduction is low. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 3,933,382 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean (SD) baseline age of 758 participants was 61.5 (6.1) years, and 424 participants [55.9%] were female. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 758 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study cohort included 568 patients (289 [50.9%] men; mean [SD] age, 70.5 [16.1] years) who died in the hospital or were discharged to hospice. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 568 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 504 enrolled patients, 491 completed POD assessment (mean [SD] age, 68.4 [8.3] years; 385 [78.4%] male), of whom 106 (21.6%) developed POD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 27 857 participants (mean [SD] age at baseline, 61 [10] years; 15 747 female participants [56.5%]; 19 249 non-Hispanic White participants [69.1%]), 4105 (14.7%) developed dementia during the follow-up period (mean [SD], 10.2 [5.6] years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 857 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this review of 56 RCTs for AD involving 39 575 participants, 23 348 women (59.0%) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 100 Evidence: high
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 →