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
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
These findings suggest that HB-CCT via Neurotablet can effectively enhance specific cognitive abilities in PD, supporting the role of digital, home-based interventions as feasible strategies to mitigate cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has been related to a lower risk of dementia and better cognitive function. 4 key findings →
Participants: 45,906 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our analysis revealed that 26.40% of the participants had mild cognitive impairment, whereas 48.50% demonstrated low adherence to the MIND diet. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 462 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MCI patients showed significantly reduced plasma levels of TGF-β1 and increased TNF-α concentrations compared to other participants. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 37 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
COG-T CHD is the first clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in patients with coronary heart disease, filling an important gap in the treatment evidence for cognitive digital therapy. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
A wMD was related to slowed EM declines across sociodemographic populations in a national U.S. sample. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 833 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were no significant associations in men. 5 key findings →
Participants: 6,028 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Cognitive decline occurred in 38.1% of participants but was not associated with MD adherence. 5 key findings →
Participants: 8,568 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In years when older adults subjectively reported fewer difficulties with their finances, they objectively performed better at financial tasks and this relationship became stronger over 10 years. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,802 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) is a leading cause of age-related cognitive decline, driven by cerebrovascular dysfunction and cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that subcortical VCIND modifies the relationship between FPN lateralization and cognitive functions, rather than altering the lateralization pattern itself. 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Epidemiological studies suggest that higher MedDiet adherence is associated with slower cognitive decline, reduced conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease, and better motor and non-motor outcomes in Parkinson’s disease. 5 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants in the highest versus lowest MedDiet and MIND categories had 21% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.84) and 14% (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.91) lower dementia risk, respectively. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the dementia field, a number of applications are being developed aimed at boosting functional abilities. 3 key findings →
Participants: 43 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At baseline, MCI participants displayed elevated levels of IL-17A, CX3CL1, CCL11, with a borderline increase of IL-6 and TNFα. 5 key findings →
Participants: 76 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To date, the impact of cognitive therapies on patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been studied in terms of cognition, quality of life and activities of daily living rather than in the context of neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). 5 key findings →
Participants: 4,089 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
The Hierarchical-Circular Model of Biological Memory offers a unifying hypothesis for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias that bridges genetic, epigenetic, physiological, neuroimmune, and interoceptive processes across the lifespan. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal 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.
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