27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Our pilot studies (National Institutes of Health [NIH] stage 1A) have shown that MHB is feasible, acceptable, and associated with improvement in lifestyle behavior and cognitive outcomes. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 225 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregiver stress is associated with negative outcomes for both caregivers and care recipients. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 14 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 S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 117 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Phase 3 (NIH stage 1B) is a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the intervention versus the Health Education Program control. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Study findings will reveal the feasibility of delivering an 8-week multidomain health education intervention for primary prevention of dementia in midlife and will provide preliminary evidence of mechanisms of change. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We are currently in the recruitment and data collection phase. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,307 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Bacopa consumption is known to enhance cognitive performance in healthy individuals and is associated with alterations in pathways related to branched-chain and aromatic amino acid biosynthesis. 3 key findings →
Participants: 76 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study was approved by the institutional review board in April 2022 and funded in May 2022. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
People with MCI are at increased risk of developing AD. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 51 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04821960; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04821960. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Studies suggest that reminiscence strategies combined with an intergenerational approach may yield significant social and mental health benefits for participants. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We are conducting a single-blinded, National Institutes of Health stage-2, randomized clinical trial to establish the efficacy of AB versus a time-matched and dose-matched education control (Health Enhancement Program [HEP]) in improving self-reported and objective outcomes of physical, cognitive, and emotional functions in 260 participants. 3 key findings →
Participants: 37 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We will use results from this study to develop the first live video telehealth dyadic resiliency intervention focused on the prevention of chronic emotional distress in couples shortly after ADRD diagnoses. 2 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This work was supported by a Crossover grant (Maintaining Optimal Cognitive Functioning In Aging [MOCIA] 17611) of the Dutch Research Council (NWO), granted in December 2019. 5 key findings →
Participants: 102 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent trials of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have reported encouraging results for improving or stabilizing cognition in patients diagnosed with Alzheimer dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 523 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We hypothesize that the experimental group will be more effective in managing caregiver burden and coping strategies and that this will improve the perception of well-being, anxiety, and depression among caregivers. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We anticipate that transcranial alternating current stimulation will be a well-tolerated treatment, with no serious side effects and with considerable short- and long-term cognitive improvements. 2 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of the study and the submission of a manuscript for peer review are expected in June 2024. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As of October 2025, we have recruited 200 participants. 4 key findings →
Participants: 200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study protocol is part of a project approved and funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 (grant agreement number 875221). 3 key findings →
Participants: 558 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, the study with the same protocol is going as expected with no serious AE or any major protocol deviation. 2 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patient inclusion started in January 2023, and study enrollment of patients is expected to finish in the second quarter of 2027, whereas the main results are expected to be published in the first quarter of 2028. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delivery of cognitive rehabilitation by telehealth appeared feasible but required modifications such as greater reliance on caregivers and clients for manipulating materials. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the usability assessment, eight categories of errors were distinguished, of which three were of critical, two of medium, and three of low severity. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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.
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.
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.
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 →