Seventeen studies (5373 patients) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,373 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), the most prevalent dementia, is partially driven by genetics. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 94,437 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Implementation facilitation that engages clinicians under typical practice conditions can enhance evidence-based team processes; its effect on self-reported overall population health status was negligible, although health status improved for individuals with complex conditions and hospitalization rate declined. 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,596 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results provide further support for behavioral interventions for persons with MCI. 4 key findings →
Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The drug did not prevent clinical progression in a trial involving patients with mild-to-moderate dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,454 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Presence and severity of WMH are associated with substantially increased risk of dementia, functional impairment, stroke recurrence, and mortality after ischemic stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 104 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a large international cardiovascular outcome trial in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiorenal disease, linagliptin did not modulate cognitive decline over 2.5 years. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,545 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Autopsy measures of Alzheimer's disease neuropathology have been leveraged as endophenotypes in previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,701 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,791 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In analyses that addressed bias due to reverse causation, physical inactivity was not associated with all-cause dementia or Alzheimer's disease, although an indication of excess dementia risk was observed in a subgroup of physically inactive individuals who developed cardiometabolic disease. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 404 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that cognitive impairment and delirium are major issues in CABG patients which require specific attention. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 91,829 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both increased sympathetic activity and decreased parasympathetic activity seem to be associated with a worse performance in the cognitive domains considered, in the absence of dementia and severe cardiovascular diseases or other medical and psychiatric diseases. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 19,431 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Due to the small number of studies and heterogeneity in study design and outcomes, the association between DNA methylation age and age-related disease and longevity is inconclusive. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 41,607 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
80/100
Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 10,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 2846 articles identified, 94 studies were eligible, with up to 14 529 participants for WMH, 16 012 participants for BI, 15 693 participants for CMB, and 4587 participants for PVS. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 529 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found no studies on our primary outcome of global cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,183 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Low cognitive and brain reserve and limited cognitive stimulation are associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 6,742 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our educational intervention increased ACP initiation, and the number of nonmedical and medical preferences discussed. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 140 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Emergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,350 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Twenty-three articles were included in the systematic review, and 21 in the meta-analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
How and when education improves cognitive capacity is an issue of profound societal importance. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,009 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among older adults without cognitive impairment or dementia, both an unfavorable lifestyle and high genetic risk were significantly associated with higher dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 383 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This meta-analysis provides evidence that CCT improves cognitive function in older people with MCI. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 690 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The possibilities of computer-based cognitive training (CCT) in postponing the onset of dementia are currently unclear, but promising. 4 key findings →
Participants: 631 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pilot study showed that functional tasks exercise using simulated functional tasks as a means of combined cognitive and exercise program is feasible and beneficial in improving the memory and functional status of older adults with mild cognitive impairment as well as reducing the care-related burdens of their caregivers. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 59 Evidence: high
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 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 →