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
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
69/100
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
69/100
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
Our results encourage an independent validation cohort study to confirm the indication that the plasma Aβ 1-40 /Aβ 1-42 ratio, assessed via Simoa, may improve future standard of care and clinical trial design. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 276 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Non-ART polypharmacy is common among PLWH and associated with an increasing risk of hospitalization and mortality [1]; thus, nonpharmacologic management of comorbidities is critical for PLWH who may experience an earlier onset and a greater burden of comorbidities. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive testing follow-up occurred for 1 to 18 years (mean [SD], 0.98 [2.25] years); autopsy-verified diagnoses were available for 120 of 845 participants with diseases (14.2%). 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 913 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We were unable to detect a difference in HRQOL for screening for ADRD among older adults. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,008 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Assignment to active treatment was not beneficial for any of the indications examined and may have been slightly disadvantageous for patients with Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 39,875 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sleep management might serve as a promising target for dementia prevention. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this study, lower AD signature region volumes, brain microhemorrhages, higher WMH volumes, and infarcts were risk factors associated with dementia in older community-based residents. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,553 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As one of few meta-analyses comparing different quantities of physical activity and exercise interventions for AD in details, our study suggests that physical activity and exercise can improve cognition of older adults with AD. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 673 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
68/100
The strength of the reported associations, the consistency across studies and the suggestion of a dose response supports a need to keep modifiable risk factor exposure to a minimum and to avoid exposure to additional modifiable risks. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From a total of 146 patients, 111 patients were included (67 men [60.4%]; mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 62.5 [11.5] years). 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 146 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →