Good levels of participation, adherence, and retention appear to be achievable for participants through age 85 years. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Two reviewers independently screened the search results and reference lists of the identified papers and related reviews. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Backgrounds To investigate the efficacy of a community group-based intervention among community-dwelling older adults with physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 733 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This project will be part of the World-Wide FINGERS (Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability) Network, of which common identifiable data will be shared and harmonized among the consortia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 165 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia) Risk Score is a validated tool estimating dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 112 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Within 17 months, participant recruitment has been successfully completed (N = 1210; mean age: 67.7 years (SD: 4.6); 64% female). 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
79/100
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 6-month cycling aerobic exercise intervention on cardiorespiratory fitness and the dose-response relationship in community-dwelling older adults with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 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
Transferring a lifestyle intervention from a trial-setting to real life requires knowledge about the factors that influence effective implementation. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 27 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A 6-week robot-assisted, multi-domain cognitive training program can improve the efficiency of global cognitive function and depression during cognitive tasks in older adults with MCI, which is associated with improvements in memory and executive function. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 90 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
27-OH appears to be a marker not only for dementia/AD risk, but also for monitoring the effects of preventive interventions on cholesterol metabolism. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 47 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results obtained will provide information on the applicability of these multidomain intervention programs to at-risk elderly people. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 150 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pain is inversely associated with cognitive function in older adults, but the effects of pain on cognitive decline are not fully clear. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 688 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Obesity has been linked to cognitive impairment, cognitive decline and dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 180 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We investigated the effect of a multidomain lifestyle intervention on the risk of dementia estimated using the validated CAIDE risk score (post-hoc analysis). 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The FINGER MRI exploratory sub-study did not show significant differences between the intervention and control groups on changes in regional brain volumes, regional cortical thicknesses, or WML volume after 2 years in at-risk elderly without substantial impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 132 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
111,485 articles were initially retrieved; 288 full articles were reviewed and 89.6% subsequently deemed ineligible due to exclusion of participants with co-existence of dementia and Parkinsonism. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Visual speed of processing training delivered on-site or at-home to middle-aged or older adults using standard home computers resulted in stabilization or improvement in several cognitive function tests. 1 key finding →
Participants: 681 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's dementia (AD) is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., with an estimated $305 billion cost of care in 2020. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 604 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multidomain lifestyle interventions represents a promising strategy to counteract cognitive decline in older age. 2 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A 2-year lifestyle intervention was able to maintain the daily functioning of the at-risk older population. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study indicates that the cognitive and behavioral efficacies of MeMo, a Web-based training app, can be observed only with regular use of the app. 4 key findings →
Participants: 46 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
RS-tDCS is a safe and feasible rehabilitation modality for poststroke cognitive dysfunction. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive training interventions show to be a potential treatment to ameliorate depression in people with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,551 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CCT proved effective in PD-MCI patients when compared with traditional PCT. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 53 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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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