Patients possessed above risk factors might be high-risk patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 104,572 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.
78/100
This study provides preliminary evidence that falls among community-dwelling older adults are associated with factors such as age, female gender, fear of falling, history of falls, unclear vision, depression, and balance disorders. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggested high prevalence and detrimental impact of DSD in hospitalized older adults, highlighting a need for early identification, prevention, and treatments. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 81 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Residents' mean age was 86.5 years, 39 (12.9%) were African American, and 246 (81.5%) were women. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most proxies select comfort as the preferred level of care for NH residents with advanced dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 402 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We present a range of trigger tools spanning different hospital settings and patient populations. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 17,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Better alignment between preferences for comfort-focused care and advance directives is needed in advanced dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 328 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review found that withdrawal of preventive medicines at the end of life is challenging. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 26,854 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-two studies (20 randomised; 32 non-randomised) with 4786 participants diagnosed with cancer (n = 4491), dementia (n = 43), AIDS (n = 235), spasticity (n = 16), NORSE syndrome (n = 1) were included. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,491 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The hippocampal formation is a brain structure integrally involved in episodic memory, spatial navigation, cognition and stress responsiveness. 3 key findings →
Participants: 33,536 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A 28% increase in CSF DHA and 43% increase in CSF EPA were observed in the DHA treatment arm compared to placebo (mean difference for DHA (95% CI): 0.08 µg/mL (0.05, 0.10), p<0.0001; mean difference for EPA: 0.008 µg/mL (0.004, 0.011), p<0.0001). 2 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hypertension significantly increases the risk of vascular dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 768 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Well-designed and executed RCTs are needed to confirm our findings on stroke and to have more scientific evidence available for the other neurological diseases. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,335 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, NPTs have excellent potential to improve cognition in people with dementia, and PBM may have more significant benefits in improving cognition than the other four NPTs. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 38 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on this meta-analytic survey of the literature, increased amyloid burden has small but nontrivial associations with specific domains of cognitive performance in individuals who are currently cognitively normal. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 7,140 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Brain networks or 'connectomes' include a minority of highly connected hub nodes that are functionally valuable, because their topological centrality supports integrative processing and adaptive behaviours. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 56 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ARIA was detected more often on MRI scans when every scan was reviewed by trained neuroradiologists and results adjudicated. 4 key findings →
Participants: 242 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This analysis indicated that patients with type 2 diabetes under treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors presented with the lowest risk of dementia, followed by those treated with metformin and thiazolidinedione, while treatment with insulin was associated with the highest risk. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 530,355 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Metformin, thiazolidinediones, pioglitazone, GLP1RAs and SGLT2is were associated with reduced risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three donepezil, two galantamine, one rivastigmine, and two memantine trials, comprising 3093 patients on the study drugs and 2090 patients on placebo, met the selection criteria. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,093 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Diuretic, ARB, and ACE-I use was, in addition to and/or independently of mean systolic blood pressure, associated with reduced risk of AD dementia in participants with normal cognition, while only diuretic use was associated with reduced risk in participants with MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,928 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Twenty-four week supplementation with 900 mg/d DHA improved learning and memory function in ARCD and is a beneficial supplement that supports cognitive health with aging. 3 key findings →
Participants: 485 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We aimed to assess whether continued treatment with antipsychotics in people with AD is associated with an increased risk of mortality. 5 key findings →
Participants: 165 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Future research is warranted to examine the mechanistic basis of treatment differences, and to further assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal insulin. 4 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Study objectives Mounting evidence implicates disturbed sleep or lack of sleep as one of the risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the extent of the risk is uncertain. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 69,216 Evidence: high
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 →