Our results suggest that the risk-benefit profile of mAbs remains unclear. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In 2021, aducanumab, an immunotherapy targeting amyloid-β, was approved for Alzheimer's disease (AD) by the US Food and Drug Administration thanks to positive results on a putative biological surrogate marker. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) is a human incretin hormone derived from the proglucagon molecule. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
We identified a non-linear association of type 2 diabetes duration and the risk of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 13,761 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The best-performing MRI-free approaches had high continuous and dichotomous agreement with MRI-dependent SUVRs for Aβ PET and temporal flortaucipir (R2 ≥0.95; ± agreement ≥92%) and for Alzheimer's disease-related effect sizes; agreement was slightly lower for entorhinal flortaucipir and longitudinal slopes. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,290 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Excluding participants with prevalent dementia, n = 1,161 individuals were included. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,161 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
176 and 131 participants developed incident frailty, as measured with the FI and TFI respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 131 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
20% of individuals with newly identified dementia were homebound and this group was more functionally impaired, medically complex, and socioeconomically disadvantaged as compared to the non-homebound. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 939 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MMP-9 may have more detrimental effects on AD-related pathological and cognitive changes in women. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 238 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Phosphorylated Tau181 (pTau181) in CSF and recently in plasma has been associated with Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 154 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
While large-scale, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified hundreds of loci associated with brain-related traits, identification of the variants, genes and molecular mechanisms underlying these traits remains challenging. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), younger symptom onset is associated with accelerated disease progression and tau spreading, yet the mechanisms underlying faster disease manifestation are unknown. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 240 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neuropathology and neuroimaging studies have identified several subtypes of Alzheimer's disease (AD): hippocampal sparing AD, typical AD, and limbic predominant AD. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
70/100
In this prospective cohort study, higher consumption of UPF was associated with higher risk of dementia, whereas substituting unprocessed or minimally processed foods for UPF was associated with lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 72,083 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In this cohort study, a higher number of steps was associated with lower risk of all-cause dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 78,430 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
70/100
Using datasets from a wide range of geographical regions, we found that both early life education and adulthood occupational complexity were independently predictive of dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,195 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sleep apnea (SA) is potentially a modifiable risk factor for dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,333,424 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The negative association between depression treatment and incident dementia was significant in the increasing and chronically low courses, highlighting the necessity of timely interventional strategies before depression progresses to a chronically severe state. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 354,313 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study found that CSF-based estimates using adjusted data-driven cutoffs were up to 10% higher than PET-based estimates in people without dementia, whereas the results were similar among people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 97 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that this blood biomarker test could allow for distinguishing individuals with brain amyloid-positive PET findings from individuals with amyloid-negative PET findings and serve as an aid for Alzheimer disease diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 249 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 2,277 individuals had at least 1 baseline blood biomarker available (n = 357 for CSF subsample, n = 649 for PET subsample), among whom 257 were diagnosed with clinical AD/mixed dementia during follow-up. 2 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 357 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over 10 years of close clinical dementia surveillance in this cohort study, loneliness was associated with increased dementia risk; this tripled in adults whose baseline risk would otherwise be relatively low on the basis of age and genetic risk, representing a majority of the US population. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,308 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Risk stratification is critical for the early identification of high-risk individuals and disease prevention. 3 key findings →
Participants: 117,981 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This analysis of 2-year retrospective cohort studies of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 showed that the increased incidence of mood and anxiety disorders was transient, with no overall excess of these diagnoses compared with other respiratory infections. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 47 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with no sensory impairment, DSI was associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.60; 95% CI, 1.66-2.06; P Conclusions and relevance In this cohort study, DSI was associated with increased risk of dementia, particularly AD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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