Both verbal and visual computerized memory tests showed comparable diagnostic performance to the paper-and-pencil tests. 1 key finding →
Participants: 18,450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Patients in the experimental group showed a significant improvement in various neuropsychological domains due to the training, and these effects decreased after 12 months. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
We have found evidence of a positive association between residential levels of air pollution across London and being diagnosed with dementia, which is unexplained by known confounding factors. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 978 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Study objective To examine the risks and compare the occurrences of major long-term side effects (sexual dysfunction, bone fractures, diabetes, cardiovascular morbidity, acute myocardial infarction [MI], and dementia) in patients with prostate cancer who received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with those who did not. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 201,797 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
A total of 32,901 (1.12%) participants developed dementia, of which 74.4% and 11.0% were attributable to Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia, respectively, during the median follow-up of 5.5 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,930,816 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As outlined in the original cohort profile,1 The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA) is a prospective cohort study designed to provide an evidence base for addressing the challenges and opportunities associated with population ageing in Ireland. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,525 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Associations are present between environmental risk factors for AD and age acceleration. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this cohort study of more than 350 000 veterans, even mild TBI without LOC was associated with more than a 2-fold increase in the risk of dementia diagnosis. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 178 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In older cognitively unimpaired individuals (≥50 years), widespread, age-related elevated tau signal was seen among those with normal or abnormal amyloid status as compared to younger cognitively unimpaired individuals (30-49 years). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although mixed, the results indicate a positive response for the use of internet-based interventions by caregivers. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia diagnosis recording in general hospitals is increasing but remains less likely in some groups. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 21,387 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neuropathology was ubiquitous, with 94% of participants having 1+, 78% having 2+, 58% having 3+, and 35% having 4+. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,079 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest that clinicians should consider sedative-associated, hypoxic, and septic delirium, which often co-occur, as distinct indicators of acute brain injury and seek to identify all potential risk factors that may impact on long-term cognitive impairment, especially those that are iatrogenic and potentially modifiable such as sedation. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,048 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Stroke is a strong, independent, and potentially modifiable risk factor for all-cause dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease is one of the most heritable diseases in elderly people and the most common type of dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 926 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's dementia is significantly more common in women than in men. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 971 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite differences in CVR management within the countries considered, it was possible to design and implement the HATICE multidomain intervention. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Further studies are needed to identify modifiable risk factors for FI detection and its symptom management in this patient population. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,314 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This multicenter randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility of sham-surgery-controlled stereotactic gene delivery studies in patients with AD. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 49 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean (SD) age was 73.7 (6.0) years, and the mean (SD) follow-up time was 3.7 (1.2) years. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 223 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 415 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The potential determinants of cognitive decline identified in this study, in particular modifiable risk factors, should be tested in the context of randomised controlled trials. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 626 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We systematically searched PubMed for eligible studies reporting data on CSF biomarkers reflecting amyloid precursor protein metabolism (Aβ42, Aβ40), neurodegeneration (t-tau), and tangle pathology (p-tau) in symptomatic sporadic CAA cohorts vs controls and patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 59 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MoCA was administered to 274 patients from 2 prospective hospital-based cohort studies in Germany (n = 125) and France (n = 149). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 125 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vitamins and minerals play multiple functions within the central nervous system which may help to maintain brain health and optimal cognitive functioning. 4 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.
1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →