Among 16 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 32.6 (4.4) years; 9 participants were women, and 7 were men. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This trial found no benefit of 24-month multidomain intervention with focus on improvement in lifestyle and vascular risk factors on the incidence of poststroke cognitive decline in comparison with standard stroke care. 1 key finding →
Participants: 101 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Nutrition is a modifiable factor potentially related to aging. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 661 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
Enrollment began in March 2001 and ended in December 2004 when treatments were suspended because of concerns regarding cardiovascular safety of the treatments. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although current prevention and treatment approaches to dementia have been less than optimally successful, substantial investments in dementia research will undoubtedly provide new answers to reducing the burden of dementia worldwide. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study shows that Hcy levels could modify the association between red blood cell n-3 PUFA and executive function. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,680 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
AV45 PET scans were performed in 271 individuals and preliminary results showed that 38.0% had a cortical SUVR > 1.17, which gave an indication of significant brain amyloïd deposit. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,680 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The evidence of a preventive treatment effect aimed at vascular risk factors on cognitive decline and dementia in later life is scarce and mostly based on secondary outcome parameters. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hormonal changes associated with the menopausal transition and postmenopause have the potential to influence processes linked to Alzheimer's disease symptoms and pathogenesis, but effects of menopause on Alzheimer risk can be addressed only indirectly. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Study findings will reveal the feasibility of delivering an 8-week multidomain health education intervention for primary prevention of dementia in midlife and will provide preliminary evidence of mechanisms of change. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant interactions between amyloid status and modifiable risk factors were observed for diabetes (adjusted β = -0.206, p = 0.032), high cholesterol (adjusted β = -0.155, p < 0.001), and physical inactivity (adjusted β = -0.161, p = 0.046), indicating combined effects rather than additive effects on cognitive decline among Aβ+ individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,707 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Three trajectory classes were identified: stable, slow decliners, and fast decliners. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We will use results from this study to develop the first live video telehealth dyadic resiliency intervention focused on the prevention of chronic emotional distress in couples shortly after ADRD diagnoses. 2 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our study shows that ICERS of PFA combined with MI and MI alone amounted to €21,443 and €21,543 respectively per improved Z score point compared to the placebo and are below the WTP of €50,000 while the ICER of PFA alone amounted to €111,720 per improved Z score point. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,525 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although observational studies have identified modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of risk factor modification for ADRD prevention have been inconsistent or inconclusive. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intervention in the Digital, Cognitive, Multi-domain Alzheimer Risk Velocity is uniquely designed to reduce the risk of AD through a web-based health coaching experience that addresses the modifiable lifestyle-based risk factors. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A high incidence of fractures, particularly of the hip, represents an important problem in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD), who are prone to falls and have osteoporosis. 2 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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.
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