The rise in the ageing population has resulted in increased incident rates of cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
There is a critical need to potentially individualize new strategies able to prevent and to slow down the progression of predementia and dementia syndromes. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Epidemiological work has, however, identified modifiable lifestyle factors, such as poor diet and physical and cognitive inactivity, that are associated with the risk of dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It is possible to identify risks or protective factors against dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As the number of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is expected to grow, finding ways to prevent and lower the risk of AD becomes a crucial matter. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
It may be that risk and protective factors vary with age, however, in the absence of prophylactic treatment it seems likely that the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle may represent the best option with regard to the prevention of dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Significant progress has been made in understanding the neurobiological mechanisms through which exercise protects and restores the brain. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
Dementia is a complex human disease. The incidence of dementia among the elderly population is rising rapidly worldwide. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
35/100
[Purpose] We evaluated the effects of a multicomponent intervention for pre-frail and frail older adults and assessed changes in cognitive function and body composition to explore frailty reversibility. [Participants and Methods] A total of 51 community-dwelling older adults aged 70 years or older were classified into the Robust (n=28) and Prefrail/Frail groups (n=23) using the Kihon Checklist. 1 key finding →
Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The program was effective, as evidenced by the multidimensional health gains achieved. 4 key findings →
Participants: 504 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the comprehensive dementia prevention application 'MELI' in enhancing cognitive function and alleviating depressive symptoms among older adults.A total of 50 participants aged 60 and older, enrolled in a dementia prevention program operated in Namdong-gu, Incheon, South Korea, were randomly assigned to either an experimental or a control group, with 25 participants in each. 1 key finding →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 Free full text
To compare and rank the relative and additive effects of lifestyle components including exercise, diet, cognitive training, vascular management, and digital delivery on cognitive outcomes and dementia prevention in older adults without dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
31/100
The Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) is among the most extensively studied dietary patterns and has been consistently associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, cognitive decline and several types of cancers. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
28/100
The evidence for cognitive training in preventing cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease is varied, with some studies indicating cognitive benefits but showing limited impact on functional outcomes or disease progression. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive training shows potential in preventing cognitive decline in individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease, especially as part of multimodal interventions, though current evidence varies in quality and clarity. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At present, there is no cure for dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recruitment (88.0%) and protocol fidelity (100%) met or exceeded prespecified progression criteria, whereas retention and follow-up data availability were 59.1% (13/22), slightly below the predefined 60% criterion. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When stable individual differences are accounted for, depressive symptoms emerge as a stronger within-person temporal predictor of cognitive decline than physical activity. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multidomain interventions have small but consistent beneficial effects on cognitive measures, suggesting the potential to reduce cognitive impairment and dementia risk. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 23,209 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 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