27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
[95% CI] = 0.148 [0.077-0.219]; executive function, 0.138 [0.067-0.208]; episodic memory, 0.020 [-0.051 to 0.091]; working memory, 0.128 [0.059-0.197]; visuospatial processing, 0.094 [0.023-0.164]) outperformed area-level SES in detecting cognitive deficits, and demonstrated widespread associations with poorer performance across cognitive domains. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants racialized as Black who lived in places with higher levels of area‐level structural socioeconomic racism experienced lower levels of cognition at baseline and at varying time points in the six‐year period—compared to those in places with lower structural socioeconomic racism. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,172 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To balance high-quality measurement of cognitive domains and maintain the ability to perform meaningful cross-national comparisons, each HCAP should include a common set of at least three to four continuously distributed test items per domain that can link domains across studies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive decline is a condition affecting almost one sixth of the elder population and is widely regarded as one of the first manifestations of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 145 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ObjectiveTo review the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the care of older adults with disabilities, identifying intervention type, target populations, and effects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Two logic models were developed to identify the determinants of risk for dementia and how these could be targeted by the program. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The REMINDER program contributes to dementia prevention research by combining cognitive, lifestyle, and psychosocial strategies within a group-based format, aiming to foster long-term adherence to brain-protective behaviors. 4 key findings →
Participants: 270 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of this paper was to investigate the association of three well-recognised dietary patterns with cognitive change over a 3-year period. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Certain diets, such as the Mediterranean diet, may play a significant role in healthy aging by preventing the onset of certain diseases and by improving the aging process itself. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides insight into the personal, social and environmental factors that participants report as barriers and facilitators to the adoption of the MIND diet among middle-aged adults living in the UK. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive decline is an increasingly important public health problem, with more than 100 million adults worldwide projected to develop dementia by 2050. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is much interest in early intervention for the prevention or postponement of dementia in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CT may be a viable secondary prevention technique for late-life depression, a group who are at risk of further cognitive decline and progression to dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Many studies have associated the Mediterranean diet with a decreased risk of dementia and AD, but a cause-and-effect relationship has not been deduced. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Several studies have shown that pharmacological and cognitive treatments for Alzheimers's disease improve cognitive function for short periods, but fewer studies have evaluated the efficacy of those treatments for longer (2-year) periods. 3 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher MD adherence is strongly associated with better cognitive status and less depressive symptomatology. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Tai Chi enhanced cognitive training effects in MCI. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most prevalent neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis are heterogeneous in their clinical profiles and underlying pathophysiology, although they typically share the presence of cognitive impairment that worsens significantly during the course of the disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The relationship between diet and cognitive function has been a topic of increasing interest, as numerous studies have shown that variations in dietary practices and nutrient intake may protect against age-related cognitive decline, as well as the development of dementia and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This prospective study found that high consumption of Western diet components attenuates benefits of the MedDiet on cognition. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A digitally delivered intervention with minimal support appears acceptable and potentially engaging to older adults with higher and lower levels of cognitive performance. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
By integrating behavioral measures and imaging data, previous investigations have explored the relationship between biological markers of aging and cognitive functions. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In nondemented older persons, executive function is independently associated with tasks of lower extremity function that require high attentional demand. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reduced bone mineral density and increased risk of falls are related with Alzheimer disease, and these increase likelihood of bone osteoporotic fractures causing serious complications such as disability, fear of falling, loss autonomy, decreased quality of life, and anticipated mortality in elderly patients. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) or presbycusis, as the third leading cause of chronic disability in older adults, has been shown to be associated with predisposing cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
10 of the 1,130 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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
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 →