30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Cognitive training involving speed of cognitive processing has the potential to delay the diagnosis of ADRD. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,021 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The trial occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 106 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The overall adherence rate to MI was 84.7%. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The global metabolic disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), significantly increases the risk of cognitive dysfunction, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 250,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CITA GO-ON Study, as a part of the World-Wide FINGERS network, is designed to validate the efficacy of a multidomain lifestyle intervention for dementia prevention and contribute valuable data to inform public health strategies fostering healthy, active aging. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,051 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the UK Biobank cohort (N = 166,916), MIND diet demonstrated the broadest neuroprotective effects. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 166,916 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) increases the risk of dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.279). No adverse events were reported. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
LIGHT will provide insight into the implementation and (cost-)effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention for indicated prevention in a memory clinic setting. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The combinations that were both highly prevalent and had the most detrimental effect on global cognition were: hearing loss and physical inactivity for the dyad (mean difference in change score = -0.07 SD; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), hearing loss, physical inactivity, and hypertension for the triad (mean difference in change score = -0.07; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), and hearing loss, physical inactivity, hypertension, and sleep disturbance for the tetrad (mean difference in change score = -0.05; 95 % CI: -0.07 to -0.03; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.20). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30,097 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sarcopenia and its components were associated with baseline MMSE and MMSE changes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multidomain interventions may benefit younger older adults or those with overly strict or lenient HbA1c control; however, these findings need confirmation in future studies. 3 key findings →
Participants: 531 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
117 participants have complete data (mean age: 73 ± 7.4). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 150 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intricate relationship between dietary habits and cognitive function is gaining increasing attention, with a focus on the gut-brain axis as a modifiable target for intervention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed no mediation of individual risk factors in the effect of the interventions on dementia incidence. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,679 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 403 participants (mean age 56.4 ± 5.7 years, 62.5% female), the median number of dementia risk factors was 5.0; hyperlipidaemia (92.5%), low cognitive activity (72.5%), obesity (57.6%), and hypertension (52.7%) were the most prevalent. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 403 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive decline and dementia represent major and growing global health challenges, driven largely by population aging and increased longevity. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results will provide new evidence of the efficacy of an innovative multi-component intervention integrating IVR and telemedicine in SCD individuals. 2 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When systematically reviewed using the USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review method and an a priori established protocol, a common theme emerged: diets characterized by higher consumption of vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, fish, seafood, and unsaturated vegetable oils, alongside lower intake of red and processed meats and sugar-sweetened beverages, are consistently associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline and dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our study shows that the pdp is well received by its participants, underlined by a high level of satisfaction and positive responses to what pdp offers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 575 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants numbered 3334 and had a median age of 62 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia, a syndrome characterized by a decline in cognitive function beyond what is expected from normal aging, poses a significant global health challenge. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Change in QoL (decreased, maintained or improved) was determined using a cross-tabulation test. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The demographic transition during the recent decades has resulted in an increase in older adults globally. 2 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the participants, 298 had at least one untreated or uncontrolled VRF. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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.
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.
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 30,980 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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