27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We aimed to present the first detailed analysis of the global prevalence, mortality, and overall burden of dementia as captured by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016, and highlight the most important messages for clinicians and neurologists. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Median follow-up by intention to treat was 2.0 years. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,180 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 2846 articles identified, 94 studies were eligible, with up to 14 529 participants for WMH, 16 012 participants for BI, 15 693 participants for CMB, and 4587 participants for PVS. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 529 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings suggest that risk factors associated with ADRDs have changed over the past decade and differ based on sex and race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 378 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers were not significantly different at baseline (except for serum cholesterol level). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Main results We included two trials with 26,340 participants aged 40 to 82 years of whom 11,610 were aged 70 or older. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 26,340 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In patients with early Alzheimer's disease, donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 257 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our analysis suggests that previous estimates of dementia burden, based on smaller datasets, might have underestimated the burden of dementia in China. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 340,247 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 8,257 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
A nurse-led, multidomain intervention did not result in a reduced incidence of all-cause dementia in an unselected population of older people. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Concentrations of amyloid-beta (Aβ)(42) in the CSF appeared to decline 25 years before expected symptom onset. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 128 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Training effects were of a magnitude equivalent to the amount of decline expected in elderly persons without dementia over 7- to 14-year intervals. 4 key findings →
Participants: 711 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Though still small, the current body of RCT evidence indicates that CT is safe and modestly effective on cognition in patients with mild to moderate PD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Good levels of participation, adherence, and retention appear to be achievable for participants through age 85 years. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found no data on our primary outcome of global cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,183 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet seems a promising approach to preserve brain function during aging. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found no studies on our primary outcome of global cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,183 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two reviewers independently screened the search results and reference lists of the identified papers and related reviews. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Backgrounds To investigate the efficacy of a community group-based intervention among community-dwelling older adults with physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 733 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This project will be part of the World-Wide FINGERS (Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability) Network, of which common identifiable data will be shared and harmonized among the consortia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 165 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia) Risk Score is a validated tool estimating dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 112 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Within 17 months, participant recruitment has been successfully completed (N = 1210; mean age: 67.7 years (SD: 4.6); 64% female). 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Low cognitive and brain reserve and limited cognitive stimulation are associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 6,742 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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.
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 →