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
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Higher adherence to the MedDiet was associated with greater gut microbial diversity (p < 0.05) and distinct microbial composition (PERMANOVA, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 746 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder with no cure, making preventive strategies crucial. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,500 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MD is a scientifically supported dietary intervention with broad preventive and therapeutic benefits. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The global metabolic disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), significantly increases the risk of cognitive dysfunction, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 250,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In multi-adjusted models, higher adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet was associated with higher total mean cortical thickness, and thicker cortex in Alzheimer's disease-signature regions, while a higher adherence to the MeDi was associated with better cognitive performance. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 615 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vision difficulty and a larger friend network were negatively associated with adherence. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 191 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
56 individuals (mean (sd) age: 68.8 (4.2) years, 26 females, 24/32 intervention/control group) were included at baseline and 41 returned after an average of 28 months for the second assessment. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 56 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Data collection commenced in November 2023 and finished in July 2024, with the enrollment of 49 older adults with MCI (n=40, 81.6%, assigned to the experimental group [EG] and n=9, 18.4%, to the control group [CG]) conducted from October 2023 to April 2024. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CITA GO-ON Study, as a part of the World-Wide FINGERS network, is designed to validate the efficacy of a multidomain lifestyle intervention for dementia prevention and contribute valuable data to inform public health strategies fostering healthy, active aging. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,051 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-nine articles were included, with 21 meta-analyses and 18 qualitative systematic reviews. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the UK Biobank cohort (N = 166,916), MIND diet demonstrated the broadest neuroprotective effects. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 166,916 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examined the combined effects of StrongerMemory program (brain exercises involving reading, writing, and math) and weekly social engagement on cognitive, behavioral, and emotional outcomes in older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD). 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 50 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The application was developed with distinct user and administrator interfaces to support engagement and monitoring. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, represent a growing global health crisis, yet current treatment strategies remain primarily palliative. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After the intervention, the CG showed significantly lower scores compared to all experimental groups. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 92 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) increases the risk of dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.279). No adverse events were reported. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were 656 deaths, 1585 incidents of CVD and 165 dementia diagnoses during 17.2 years of follow-up. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,584 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This disease is associated with numerous restrictions for those affected but also for caregivers and society. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with the control arm (n = 36), the TEAM-V Program (n = 39) was associated with significantly improved general cognition (MoCA, P = 0.02) at 2 years. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the 92 participants in the ITT population (mean age 71.9 years; mean education 16.5 years; 61/92, 66%, women; 88/92, 96%, White), 82 (89%) completed all study activities. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 92 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Both the Keto and ADF groups demonstrated significant weight loss, but cognitive performance improved most notably in the ADF group, in association with reduced inflammation. 5 key findings →
Participants: 96 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There have been 23 studies (completed or reported as ongoing) of multidomain interventions for AD, including 19 RCTs. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: high
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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