Between January 2006 and December 2010, 20,729 patients aged >70 years received a prescription for an AD medication. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20,729 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
55/100
These convergent data support a prospective clinical trial of low-dose lithium orotate to slow disease progression in MCI. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging is associated with decline in white matter (WM) microstructure, decreased cognitive functioning, and increased risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
long baseline nighttime and 24-h sleep durations (≥9 h) as well as being persistent or becoming long sleepers during follow-up were associated with dementia incidence. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher ISI score was associated with greater average levels of CSF Aβ42 (per point: 30.7 pg/mL, 95% CI: 4.17-57.3, p = 0.023), as was higher WASO (per 10 min: 136 pg/mL, 95% CI: 48-223, p = 0.002) and more awakenings (per 5:123 pg/mL, 95% CI = 55-192, p < 0.001). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 63 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence is increasingly supporting the notion that obstructive sleep apnea is a risk factor for dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cross-sectionally, participants with ≥3 SI had twice the prevalence of ECI (prevalence ratio = 2.10, p = 0.02). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of the 17,668 respondents, 8,396 (47.5%) were men. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared to participants with no APOE-E4 alleles, participants with 1 allele had better thresholds at 4.0 kHz (β = -2.72 dB, P = .013) and 8.0 kHz (β = -3.05 kHz, P = .006), and participants with 2 alleles had better hearing thresholds at 1.0 kHz (β = -8.56 dB, P = .021). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,833 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher number of CVRF was associated with poorer attention (β= -0.042, p = 0.039) and memory (β= -0.080, p < 0.001), but not with subjective cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,480 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
55/100
Totally 30,332 patients (5.6%) were diagnosed with dementia during the follow-up, with 14,097 men (4.9%) and 16,235 women (6.5%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 537,513 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
55/100
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the cardiovascular risk factors for dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Risk of overall dementia and its subtypes was not associated with MetS or any MetS component in participants younger than 75. 4 key findings →
Participants: 749 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
55/100
A high rate of physical inactivity was found among those enrolled in this project. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 120 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence to date supports the notion that higher levels of CR, as measured by proxy variables reflective of lifetime experiences, are associated with better cognitive performance, and with a reduced risk of incident mild cognitive impairment/dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
55/100
We evaluate-also in a critical way-the methods commonly used to define and measure CR, including sociobehavioral proxies, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological and genetic measures. 5 key findings →
Participants: 842 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher levels of occupational complexity were associated with better baseline cognition. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,026 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Educational attainment and leisure activity engagement were individually associated with memory performance. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,864 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) was proposed to account for the discrepancy between levels of brain pathologic features or damage and clinical and cognitive function. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) was proposed to account for the discrepancy between levels of brain pathologic process or damage and clinical and cognitive function. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
While the field advances towards consensus definitions of existing concepts, the resistance vs resilience terminology may provide clarity in the communication of results in aging and dementia studies as well as provide a framework for the development of both hypotheses and study designs. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
55/100
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether brain and cognitive reserves were associated with the clinical progression of AD dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With aging, the hippocampal formation shows variable structural atrophy, which is associated with a decline in cognitive performance. 5 key findings →
Participants: 661 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher cognitive (HR: 0.91/SD, 95%CI: 0.84; 1.00) and brain reserve (HR: 0.88/SD, 95%CI: 0.77; 1.00) were associated with a lower risk of a depressive event after adjustment for baseline depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →
Participants: 105 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Educational attainment is widely accepted as a cognitive reserve variable. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events