30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Multimorbidity (hazard ratio [HR] 4·12 [95% CI 3·41-4·98]), frailty (HR 2·38 [95% CI 1·93-2·93]), and disability (HR 1·73 [95% CI 1·34-2·22]) were associated with increased risk of mortality; these associations were not modified by socioeconomic status. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 308 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The strength of evidence for an association between gait speed and cognition was demonstrated by the number and consistency of results, as well as quality of the studies. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29,520 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Socioeconomic differences in dementia risk can be partly explained by differences in modifiable health conditions and lifestyle factors. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,346 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Parietal cortex RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) data were generated from individuals with and without Alzheimer disease (AD; n control = 13; n AD = 83) from the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Knight ADRC). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APOE ε4 may influence the association between WMH and cognitive performance in AD and DLB. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 167 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Letters18 February 2020Geographic Variation in Prevalence of Adult Obesity in China: Results From the 2013–2014 National Chronic Disease and Risk Factor SurveillanceXiao Zhang, MD, PhD, Mei Zhang, MD, PhD, Zhenping Zhao, MD, Zhengjing Huang, MPH, Qian Deng, MD, PhD, Yichong Li, MD, PhD, An Pan, MD, PhD, Chun Li, MD, Zhihua Chen, MD, Maigeng Zhou, MD, PhD, Chao Yu, PhD, Alfred Stein, PhD, Peng Jia, PhD*, and Limin Wang, MPH*Xiao Zhang, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Mei Zhang, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhenping Zhao, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhengjing Huang, MPHNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Qian Deng, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Yichong Li, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), An Pan, MD, PhDSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China (A.P.), Chun Li, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhihua Chen, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Maigeng Zhou, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mailings are cost-effective, but direct contact improved recruitment. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These data support the use of cNfL as a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage and indicate that age-specific and sex-specific (and in some cases disease-specific) reference values may be needed. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,795 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Ladostigil was safe and well tolerated but did not delay progression to dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 107 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Low dose ω3-PUFA supplementation, either alone or in combination with a multidomain lifestyle intervention comprising physical activity counselling, had no significant effects on muscle strength over 3 years in elderly people. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,679 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fragmented investigation has masked the overall picture for causes of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MCI prevalence varied among Hispanic/Latino backgrounds, but not as widely as reported in the previous studies. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,377 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early-life factors, including education level, leg length, history of childhood head trauma, family-related factors and learning ability, were associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive impairment in later life. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 46,727 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Diabetes, even prediabetes and changes of diabetes-related biochemical indicators, predicted increased incidence of cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
TREM2 is a transmembrane receptor that is predominantly expressed by microglia in the central nervous system. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,027 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increasing evidence suggests an important role of liver function in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,581 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multi-model cognitive training help MCI patients to gained cognition benefit, especially in memory, attention and executive function. 4 key findings →
Participants: 78 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The age of the population is shifting toward the elderly range, which may lead to an increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
Participants: 70 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Use of HAs is associated with delayed diagnosis of AD, dementia, depression, anxiety, and injurious falls among older adults with HL. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 114 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review highlights the paucity of high-quality dementia-specific research in this area and recommends key areas for future work, for example, the need for process evaluation to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing interventions. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Policies regarding sustained hospice eligibility should account for the variable and protracted end-of-life trajectory of patients with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,629 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Little is known about preferred place of death, or the factors associated with achieving this, for people with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 472 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a lack of midlife specific data, limited data on VaD, and a lack of geographical representation for many risk factors for dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During the aging process, physical capabilities (e.g., muscular strength) and cognitive functions (e.g., memory) gradually decrease. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on 19 studies the weighted RR for occupational exposure to EMFs was 1.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07⁻1.50) for ALS, 1.33 (95% CI 1.07⁻1.64) for Alzheimer's disease and 1.02 (95% CI 0.83⁻1.26) for Parkinson's disease. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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 (3.4% 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events