Age-related cognitive impairment and dementia pose a significant global health, social, and economic challenge. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The HBA-CT program improves cognitive, mood, and sleep functions in older adults 'at risk' of dementia, and therefore offers promise as a secondary prevention strategy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 64 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Longitudinal observational studies show an association between higher levels of physical activity and a reduced risk of cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
72/100
In this cohort of older adults, increased numbers of optimal cardiovascular health metrics and a higher cardiovascular health score were associated with a lower risk of dementia and lower rates of cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,626 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The search yielded 115 distinctly named non-genetic risk and protective factors with a significant association, with various strengths of evidence. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This trial that enlist the support of private enterprises will lead to the creation of new services for dementia prevention as well as to verify the effectiveness of multi-domain interventions for dementia prevention. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To effectively combat dementia onset and progression, lifestyle-based interventions targeting multiple risk factors and disease mechanisms through a multidomain approach - tailored and implemented early in the disease process - have emerged as promising. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite differences in CVR management within the countries considered, it was possible to design and implement the HATICE multidomain intervention. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Modifiable lifestyle risk factors have been identified as playing a major role in the development of dementia; hence, interventions addressing these risk factors represent a significant opportunity to reduce the number of people developing dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
An overall rating of the quality of evidence was assigned by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging is associated with cognitive declines leading to mild cognitive impairments or Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Successfully assisting older adults to maintain or improve cognitive function, particularly when they are dealing with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), remains a major challenge. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It is unclear what non-pharmacological interventions to prevent cognitive decline should comprise. 3 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Observational epidemiological studies provide valuable information regarding naturally occurring protective factors observed in populations with very low prevalences of vascular disease. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review's analysis confirmed that adherence to the MedDiet is associated with some improvement in cognitive health. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, we explored whether several individual self-reported health behaviors were associated with cognitive decline when considered simultaneously, using data from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention (WRAP), an Alzheimer's disease risk-enriched cohort who were non-demented and in late midlife at baseline. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 828 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the South Korean study to prevent cognitive impairment and protect BRAIN health through lifestyle intervention in at-risk elderly people (SUPERBRAIN), we evaluated the impact of a 24-week facility-based multidomain intervention (FMI) and home-based MI (HMI) on white matter integrity. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 152 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The recent relevant evidence of the effects of the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) and lifestyle on health (2015 and first months of 2016). 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A number of health and lifestyle factors are thought to contribute to cognitive decline associated with age but cannot be easily modified by the individual patient. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Behavioral prevention strategies can help maintain high levels of cognition and functional integrity, and can reduce the social, medical, and economic burden associated with cognitive aging and age-associated neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Home-based CCT Adaptive WM training appears more effective than Non-Adaptive training in older adults from different cultural backgrounds. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Currently, 1549 participants have been screened, and 815 randomized. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,549 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the present study, higher adherence to MeDi was associated with a reduced risk for dementia and cognitive decline in a traditional Mediterranean population. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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