28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The Relief algorithm identified the caudate, cingulate, and precuneus as the strongest predictors among all modalities. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Accumulation of beta-amyloid in the brain and cognitive decline are considered hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 1005 amyloid-positive participants, 24.6% were eligible for lecanemab and 28.0% for donanemab (9.1% and 10.3% of the initial sample). 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,726 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-three patients were included: the revaluation of anti-dementia treatment led to 22 discontinuations and 11 continuations. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our two-sample MR analysis indicated that T2D is not associated with the risk of AD (OR: 1.03, CI: 0.99-1.08, P = 0.128). 5 key findings →
Participants: 455,017 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Specifically, recent studies suggest that increased plasma concentrations of lipoprotein-Aβ compromise the brain microvasculature, resulting in extravasation and retention of the lipoprotein-Aβ moiety. 2 key findings →
Participants: 314 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Following reports of bleeding upon Ginkgo intake, we assessed whether Ginkgo extract EGb 761® affects coagulation or platelet function or increases the risk of bleeding. 5 key findings →
Participants: 169 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were no significant differences in age, sex, or education between AChEIs alone and combination groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 148 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During a median of 10.8 years follow-up, sleeping more or fewer than 7 hours was associated with a higher dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR] for 5 vs 7 hours: 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.64; HR for 9 vs 7 hours: 1.59; 95% CI 1.37-1.85) as was daytime napping (HR for often/all of the time vs never/rarely: 1.67; 95% CI 1.37-2.03). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We observed a dose-response association between higher alcohol consumption in 2006 and worse sleep quality in 2012 (Ptrend < 0·001), after adjusting for age, sex, socio-economic status, smoking status, physical activity, obesity, plasma lipid profiles, diabetes and hypertension. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 905 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caregivers showed a greater discrepancy in sleep duration than did noncaregivers (-0.46 hour vs 0.22 hour, respectively; P = .003). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 122 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sleep duration exhibited a U-shaped association with SPARE-AD (p = 0.001), Trail Making Tests A and B, and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (all p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 38,816 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The combined hearing impairment and isolation with lack of conversation (hazard ratio: 1.69, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-2.61) and non-hearing impairment and isolation with lack of conversation (hazard ratio: 1.60, 95% confidence: 1.07-2.39) were associated with the development of dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,745 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fall rates were higher among PLWD compared to persons without dementia (45.5% vs. 30.9%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,581 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Poor speech-in-noise hearing (>-5.5-dB speech reception threshold; prevalence 14%) was associated with lower cognitive scores (ß = -1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.54 to -1.03). 5 key findings →
Participants: 80,074 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this sample, 12.7% of clients were admitted to LTC, with a mean time to admission of 49.6 months (SE = 0.20). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean age was 58.4 years (SD = 6.2). A 20-dB (equivalent to a one-category worsening) increase in HL was associated with a -1.53 (95% CI, -2.11, -0.94) raw score point difference in the DSST, adjusting for demographics, hearing aid use, and cardiovascular disease. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,277 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 14,186 participants, we identified 1,194 (8.4%) who developed AD over a median follow-up period of 22.6 months. 5 key findings →
Participants: 14,186 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Investigators/staff from 85 (of 192 cohorts) responded; 6 (7%) excluded participants with severe impairment; 80 (94%) measured hearing and/or vision impairment, while 5 (6%) measured neither. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Vision impairment is common among older persons. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,214 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Retinal p-tau pathology showed a consistent pattern with four stages and a molecular composition distinct from that of cerebral tauopathies. 4 key findings →
Participants: 164 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with autosomal dominant frontotemporal dementia (FTD) exhibit considerable variability in disease onset and progression. 5 key findings →
Participants: 711 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Greater educational attainment and mental activity were associated with higher composite SPPB scores and those of its three subtests (p < 0.05). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,714 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During the follow-up, 428 developed dementia; 221 had AD, 157 had VaD, and 50 had dementia of other subtypes. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From March 2019 to March 2020, 264 patients were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 264 Evidence: low
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 →