91/100
55-80 years of age were screened (N = 63,124). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 63,124 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.
Sixteen trials, including 11,402 participants (mean age 73.2 [±5.5] years; 62.3 % female) were examined. 5 key findings →
Participants: 11,402 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a pathology with increasing prevalence in the context of a more long-lived society and it is the first cause of dementia in western countries. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 12,458 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 300 randomized participants, 277 participants (mean age, 72.9 years; 69.3% female) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (142 in the MLI group and 135 in the control group). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 277 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
86/100
The meta-analysis showed that hearing impairment is associated with a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia among older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 15,521 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
619 Colombian API registrants were prescreened, 315 were assessed for eligibility, and 252 were enrolled (crenezumab-carrier, n=85; placebo-carrier, n=84; placebo-non-carrier, n=83; 160 [63%] women and 92 [37%] men) between Dec 20, 2013, and Feb 27, 2017. 237 (94%) completed the trial, with final data collection on March 22, 2022. 5 key findings →
Participants: 85 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
42 participants completed the study (NR = 22, placebo = 20). 5 key findings →
Participants: 42 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
In this clinical trial, older adults with MCI receiving aerobic-resistance exercises with sequential computerized cognitive training significantly improved cognition, although some results were inconsistent. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a common medical condition in the ageing population, and cognitive intervention is a non-pharmacologic strategy to improve cognitive functions. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,489 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As the first NMA comparing different interventions for AD and MCI, our study suggests that PE and CCT might have a significant improvement in cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms respectively. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,747 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, G. biloba at 120 mg twice a day was not effective in reducing either the overall incidence rate of dementia or AD incidence in elderly individuals with normal cognition or those with MCI. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,587 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Galantamine failed to significantly influence conversion to dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,048 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This systematic review suggests that CCT interventions could improve global cognitive function in patients with MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,059 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An unresolved question for the understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology is why a significant percentage of amyloid-β (Aβ)-positive cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals do not develop detectable downstream tau pathology and, consequently, clinical deterioration. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 1,016 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The global prevalence of MCI among community dwellers is over 15% and is affected by age, gender, education level and region of study sites. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 242,804 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In the estrogen-alone trial, 47 participants were diagnosed with probable dementia, of whom 28 were assigned to CEE and 19 to placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-2.66). 3 key findings →
Participants: 4,532 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Older people with SMC but no objective complaints are twice as likely to develop dementia as individuals without SMC. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 15,009 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 24 published articles that included 2397 AD and 3242 MCI patients were analysed. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,397 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma p-tau217 and tau positron emission tomography (PET) are strong prognostic biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but their relative performance in predicting future cognitive decline among cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals is unclear. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 1,474 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Few nutritional interventions were found to convincingly improve cognition of individuals with MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 500 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Solanezumab, which targets monomeric amyloid in persons with elevated brain amyloid levels, did not slow cognitive decline as compared with placebo over a period of 240 weeks in persons with preclinical Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results indicate a strong association between WMH and MCH, a common manifestation of cerebral amyloid angiopathy and ARIA-H. These results suggest that increased WMH volume may represent an early sign of vessel amyloidosis, likely prior to the emergence of MCH. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study 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 →