The overall weighted PAF for modifiable risk factors was 45.8% (42.2% to 49.3%). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
29,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
48/100
We found that some speech parameters of frequencies and syllabic rhythm vary due to these pathologies. 5 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
CR score was dose-dependently associated with disability/death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-0.99). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
TL was significantly shorter in the LLD compared with control participants (p = .039). 5 key findings →
Participants: 78 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Diet is an important nonpharmacological risk-modifying factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Polyphenols, folate, vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and β-carotene might decrease the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) are the two commonest causes of dementia in older adults and frequently coexist as mixed neurodegenerative-cerebrovascular pathology. 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Chlamydia pneumoniae is an intracellular bacterium implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but its role in retinal pathology and disease progression is unclear. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is marked by amyloid-β (Aβ) accumulation, tau pathology, and neuroinflammation. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Peripheral immune cell infiltration and crosstalk with brain-resident cells critically drive Alzheimer's disease (AD)-associated neuroinflammation, highlighting its therapeutic potential. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD), is a chronic age-related progressive neurodegenerative disorder, characterized by neuroinflammation and extracellular aggregation of Aβ peptide. 3 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No differences were found between regions of interest in CAA compared to NC. 4 key findings →
Participants: 21 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We included 110 patients with CAA (strictly lobar ICHs/CMBs), 33 with HA (strictly deep ICHs/CMBs) and 97 with mixed lobar/deep ICHs/CMBs. 5 key findings →
Participants: 110 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We used an autopsy series to determine whether the newest dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) consensus pathologic classification correlates with premortem diagnosis of DLB. 1 key finding →
Participants: 95 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We investigated the frequency of Lewy-related pathology (LRP) in the amygdala among the population-based Vantaa 85+ study. 2 key findings →
Participants: 304 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
There is increasing interest in studying retinal biomarkers for various neurodegenerative diseases. 2 key findings →
Participants: 99 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia, is characterized by early synaptic dysfunction that precedes overt cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No significant effects were found for caregiver strain, depressive symptoms, and distress related to neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Served dyads from three primary care clinics with a total of 87 dyads enrolled between December 2018 and June 2020. 2 key findings →
Participants: 87 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ten themes were organized into two categories. 4 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research on caregiver identity in the context of memory impairment has focused primarily on more advanced stages of the cognitive impairment trajectory (e.g., dementia caregivers), failing to capture the complex dynamics of early caregiver identity development (e.g., MCI; mild cognitive impairment caregivers). 5 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean follow-up interval was 25.0 ± 12.2 months, and two patients died during follow-up. 5 key findings →
Participants: 260 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Three themes were identified; 1) intersectionality in the Korean American caregiver experience, 2) complex family dynamics, and 3) dementia care barriers and caregiver support needs. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This is the first study adopting the multiphase optimisation strategy to identify the most active and engaging components of a psychological intervention for caregivers of patients with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Researchers are continuing to focus on the nature and sources of burden of family caregivers of persons living with dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 76 Evidence: low
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
- 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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 →