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
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Multidomain intervention studies conducted so far appear to have mixed results and substantial variability in target populations, format and intensity of interventions, choice of control conditions, and outcome measures. 2 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a major global health challenge, as its burden on society will increase with population aging. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Along with rapid global population aging, the age-related cognitive disorders such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia have posed a serious threat to public health, health care system, and sustainable economic and societal development of all countries. 1 key finding →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article describes the protocol for the Systematic Multi-domain Alzheimer's Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a single-blind randomized pilot trial to test a personalized, pragmatic, multi-domain Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk reduction intervention in a US integrated healthcare delivery system. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that accounts for the major cause of dementia, and the increasing worldwide prevalence of AD is a major public health concern. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher adherence to the MedDiet is associated with better cognitive function and lower risk of poor cognition in older UK adults. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
46/100
Although modifiable risk factors may account for around 40 % of population variability in dementia risk, the effect of risk factor interrelationships on pathology-cognition relationships is poorly understood. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current evidence suggests a potential for the Mediterranean diet to prevent cognitive decline, largely supported by observational studies, although randomized controlled trials show mixed results. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
45/100
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
The aging population is expanding, as is the prevalence of age-related cognitive decline (ARCD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive decline because of aging and neurodegeneration has become increasingly prevalent. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Globally, 985 million women are aged 50 and over, leading to increasing concerns about chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, dementia, and cognitive decline, which can adversely affect quality of life and independent living. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Numerous epidemiological studies have strongly suggested that multinutrient approaches using the Mediterranean diet (Med diet), dietary approach to systolic hypertension (DASH) and the Mediterranean-DASH diet intervention for neurodegenerative delay (MIND) are associated with a lower risk of cognitive impairment, MCI and Alzheimer's disease in older persons. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and there is currently no cure. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Exercise trainers played crucial roles that extended beyond the supervision of exercise sessions and contributed to participant engagement in the interventions. 1 key finding →
Participants: 21 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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 30,980 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.
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 30,980 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