Forty-five studies involving over 730 000 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In this sample of 101 219 patients, 52.7% were women and mean age was 62.6 years (SD, 9.3 years) as of November 1, 2016. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 101,219 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
PA was associated with lower incidence of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease, even in longer follow-ups, supporting PA as a modifiable protective lifestyle factor, even after reducing the effects of reverse causation. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 257,983 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The included studies (n=15) assessed change in cognition in response to a multidomain lifestyle intervention. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia prevalence is a global public health concern. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Transferring a lifestyle intervention from a trial-setting to real life requires knowledge about the factors that influence effective implementation. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 27 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results obtained will provide information on the applicability of these multidomain intervention programs to at-risk elderly people. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 150 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We investigated the effect of a multidomain lifestyle intervention on the risk of dementia estimated using the validated CAIDE risk score (post-hoc analysis). 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Main results We included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. 4 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 48,522 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The FINGER MRI exploratory sub-study did not show significant differences between the intervention and control groups on changes in regional brain volumes, regional cortical thicknesses, or WML volume after 2 years in at-risk elderly without substantial impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 132 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of seven studies were included. The forest plot results showed that taking lithium therapy reduced the risk of AD (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.78) and is also protective in reducing the risk of dementia (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.56-0.77). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The FINGER is at the forefront of international collaborative efforts to solve the clinical and public health problems of early identification of individuals at increased risk of late-life cognitive impairment, and of developing intervention strategies to prevent or delay the onset of cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A large fraction of dementia cases in the US were associated with potentially modifiable risk factors, especially for Black and Hispanic individuals. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Adherence to the MeDi diet may reduce the risk of MCI and AD. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Mediterranean diet (MD) has shown to reduce the occurrence of several chronic diseases. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 16,160 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a large dementia prevention trial with 6-year follow-up, dropout was associated with older age, poorer cognitive function, symptoms of depression, and disability at baseline. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,994 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pilot study was unable to demonstrate a benefit for donepezil in preventing or treating delirium in a relatively young and cognitively-intact group of elderly patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. 2 key findings →
Participants: 80 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence-based suggestions are proposed, offering clinicians and stakeholders current guidance for the prevention of AD. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 44 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
76/100
Letters16 October 2007Adjusted-Dose Warfarin versus Aspirin for Preventing Stroke in Patients with Atrial FibrillationRobert G. The study's important results indicate that the relative efficacy and safety of warfarin for stroke prevention can be extended to very elderly patients who are managed by nonspecialists. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 973 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results suggest that regular exercise is associated with a delay in onset of dementia and Alzheimer disease, further supporting its value for elderly persons. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,740 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Adherence to a Mediterranean diet may contribute to the prevention of a series of brain diseases; this may be of special value given the aging of Western societies. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The overall weighted PAF for potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia was 39·5% (95% CI 37·5-41·6) in China (n=2162 participants), 41·2% (39·1-43·4) in India (n=2004), and 55·8% (54·9-56·7) in our Latin American sample (n=12 865). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,162 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This Finnish randomized controlled trial was the first large study to show that a two-year program combining diet counseling, exercise, cognitive training, and monitoring of heart-health risk factors could help maintain or improve thinking skills in older adults at elevated dementia risk, compared with a control group who received only general health advice. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neurotropic herpesviruses may be implicated in the development of dementia 1-5 . 1 key finding →
Design: cohort 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →