AD prevention must transcend the "geriatric disease" mindset. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Practice testing with detailed, corrective feedback is an effective intervention for targeting caregivers’ dementia-related knowledge. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Greater diversity of social participation was associated with better long-term cognitive maintenance among older adults with hypertension and/or diabetes. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 547 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recruitment (88.0%) and protocol fidelity (100%) met or exceeded prespecified progression criteria, whereas retention and follow-up data availability were 59.1% (13/22), slightly below the predefined 60% criterion. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Forty participants completed the study (intervention, n = 21; control, n = 19). 4 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Biological definitions of neuronal α-synuclein disease are advancing diagnosis beyond traditional clinical syndromes, but the trajectories preceding dementia and the influence of concomitant Alzheimer pathology remain uncertain. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,543 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Population ageing is accelerating globally, with a rising burden of neurocognitive disorders such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. 5 key findings →
Participants: 63 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From 12,770 records, 3,636 duplicates were removed and 9,134 titles and abstracts were screened. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Early, scalable detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains a global health priority, but non-invasive biomarkers that capture network-level dysfunction during standardized cognitive challenge remain limited. 1 key finding →
Participants: 13 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When stable individual differences are accounted for, depressive symptoms emerge as a stronger within-person temporal predictor of cognitive decline than physical activity. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Wearable devices repeatedly measure activity, sleep, and nocturnal physiology, but their value for three-class cognitive screening remains uncertain. 1 key finding →
Participants: 174 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants were aged 60–94 years, with a mean age of 78.5 ± 7.9 years, and 45.7% were women. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings indicate that HFOs likely arise from different neuronal populations and are generated through distinct mechanisms in these two models. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Controlling for baseline differences, treatment of OSA improved delayed recall and may reduce the slope of memory decline in Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 86 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Specific disease clusters involving diabetes, oral disease, sensory impairment, and osteoporosis were associated with suspected dementia and neuropsychiatric heterogeneity, supporting integrated multimorbidity-oriented screening and care. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,597 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings indicate that the cognitive impact of hearing loss depends on structural resources, highlighting the need to integrate sensory health and social context in dementia prevention efforts. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,397 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Our findings reveal marked geographic variation in dementia risk factors, highlighting the need for region-specific prevention strategies. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Because deaths without a given condition differ in cause composition from deaths with it, each condition was also compared with deaths carrying another of the studied conditions: the dementia estimate strengthened to 1.050 (1.036–1.065), and cerebrovascular disease reached 1.018 (1.009–1.027), a smaller but statistically robust positive modification. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In brain, inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian–Laird) across six independent postmortem adult-brain GEO cohorts (GSE33000, GSE132903, GSE173955, GSE159699, GSE5281, GSE48350) yielded 458 analyzable panel genes, 167 at Benjamini–Hochberg FDR < 0.05, and 141 high-confidence genes (FDR < 0.05, measured in at least three cohorts, direction-concordant in at least 70% of cohorts, and nominally significant in at least two cohorts). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 329 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hypertension is associated with lower risk of dementia-related outcomes in aECAD patients. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CAD was not associated with global or domain-level neurocognitive performance. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 512 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive staging and everyday function are not interchangeable. 1 key finding →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 202,508 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants perceived that interpreter involvement could support communication, direct participation, and the interpretability of assessments when it was timely, appropriately prepared, and aligned with clinical roles. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 64 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings indicate that cognitive impairment may mark a population vulnerable to medication complexity rather than independently driving DDI risk, with polypharmacy emerging as the principal modifiable determinant. 4 key findings →
Participants: 101 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mean scores were 23.45/30 (78.2%) for general Alzheimer’s disease knowledge and 13.75/18 (76.4%) for BPSD knowledge; the scores were moderately correlated (ρ = .598, p < .001). 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 196 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →