Key Messages: Our results suggest that benzodiazepine use is significantly associated with dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review 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.
The prevalence of MCI in China was 15.4%, which varied by demographics, lifestyles, morbidity, screening tools, and diagnostic criteria. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 123,766 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The CHS has developed a methodology for longitudinal studies of dementia in large cohorts and represents the largest study of dementia including cognitive testing, MRI and genetic markers. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Linking detailed HCAP cognitive assessments to the wealth of available longitudinal HRS data on cognition, health, biomarkers, genetics, health care utilization, informal care, and economic resources and behavior will provide unique and expanded opportunities to study cognitive impairment and dementia in a nationally representative US population-based sample. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,496 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
62/100
Based on analysis of prospective and nonprospective studies, NSAID exposure was associated with decreased risk of Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia prevalence estimates from this first nationally representative population-based study of dementia in the USA to include subjects from all regions of the country can provide essential information for effective planning for the impending healthcare needs of the large and increasing number of individuals at risk for dementia as our population ages. 1 key finding →
Participants: 856 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Linking the ADAMS dementia clinical assessment data to the wealth of available longitudinal HRS data on health, health care utilization, informal care, and economic resources and behavior, will provide a unique opportunity to study the onset of CIND and dementia in a nationally representative population-based sample, as well as the risk factors, prevalence, outcomes, and costs of CIND and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 856 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Strengths of the study are that the subjects were randomly selected from a defined population, the majority of the subjects were examined in person, and MCI was defined using published criteria. 1 key finding →
Participants: 2,719 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study will explore the added value of a multifaceted intervention programme and contribute to the design of future interventions for patients with mild dementia and their caregivers. 1 key finding →
Participants: 330 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
Green spaces generally showed an inverse association with EOD risk that was almost linear for AD and inverted U-shaped for non-AD. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Age-related white matter changes (ARWMC) on brain MRI have been associated with cognitive, motor, mood and urinary disturbances. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We developed prediction rules to guide the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in two community-based cohort studies (the Religious Orders Study and the Rush Memory and Aging Project). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adjusted differences showed advantages in the 6-year change in STICS-m score of 0.25 (95% CI 0.04-0.45) for an increase of 1-SD (9 points) in the AHEI-2010 and of 0.27 (95% CI 0.05-0.48) for an increase of 1-SD (1.5 points) in the MIND diet. 5 key findings →
Participants: 806 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The extensive in-person assessment classified 83 persons with normal cognition, 42 persons with MCI, and 42 persons with dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 83 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After exclusion of the participants who had subsequently refused the medical interview, the 3C Study sample consisted of 3,649 men (39.3%) and 5,645 women, mean age 74.4 years, with a relatively high level of education and income. 4 key findings →
Participants: 9,693 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Over a median follow-up period of 4.33 years, 637 participants (7.27%) developed dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 8,758 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In this group of older adults free from neurodegenerative diseases, a greater variability of step length was associated with greater burden of subclinical brain vascular abnormalities as defined by MRI. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
47/100
The long-term objective of the Rush Memory and Aging Project is to identify the postmortem indices linking genetic and environmental risk factors to the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The global age-standardized prevalence of AD and other dementias increased from 672 (95% uncertainty interval: 589 to 764) per 100,000 population in 1990 to 694 (603 to 794) per 100,000 population in 2021, with AAPCs of 0.09% (95% confidence interval: 0.06% to 0.11%). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The total number of new diagnoses of dementia with a vascular component or vascular alone was 202, with 20 cases attributable to pure VD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The increased incidence of seizures and epilepsy in the elderly can be attributed to the increase of age-related and aging-related epileptogenic conditions. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Clinical and pathological data from the Rush Memory and Aging Project were used to test the hypothesis that distress proneness is associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 55 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The overall 1-year recurrent stroke rate was 9.4% among 895,916 ischemic stroke patients (mean age: 78 years; 56.6% women; 86.6% White, 9.7% Black and 1.2% Latino/Hispanic). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 1994-1995, a screening and examination survey was conducted to ascertain the prevalence of dementia, Parkinson's disease and stroke in two urban communities and one rural community of central Spain. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In 2021, the age-standardised rates for ADOD were 694.01 (95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]: 602.88 to 794.08) for prevalence, 119.76 (95% UI: 104.96 to 135.89) for incidence, and 481.70 (95% UI: 228.79 to 1,023.96) for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
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 27,380 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 →