alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1,001–1,025 of 1,138 studies (page 41 of 46) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 1,138 studies tagged controlled — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Linking nutrition and aging: A cross-domain analysis of Mediterranean Diet Adhesion Screener components

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development 2025-10-15

This study explores the scientific landscape linking the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) to aging-related health outcomes through a comprehensive bibliometric and scoping review approach. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Ιnnovative Health Promotion Strategies: A 6-Month Longitudinal Study on Computerized Cognitive Training for Older Adults with Minor Neurocognitive Disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education 2025-03-12

Minor neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) represent a transitional phase between normal cognitive aging and dementia, highlighting the importance of early interventions. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

MIND diet moderates the associations between cerebrovascular and neurodegenerative disease burden and cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Frontiers in Nutrition 2026-05-13

The MIND diet may buffer the cognitive consequences of cerebrovascular pathology and cortical atrophy in older adults at elevated dementia risk and promote cognitive resilience over general healthy eating guidelines. 2 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

No robust add-on effects of prefrontal theta–gamma tACS to cognitive training on episodic memory in non-demented older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Clinical Neurophysiology 2025-07-15

The primary analysis demonstrated significant improvements in multiple episodic memory measures across both intervention groups, with no significant differences observed between groups. 5 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Joggin' the Noggin: Towards a Physiological Understanding of Exercise-Induced Cognitive Benefits

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 2018-03-20

This narrative review examines literature pertaining to possible physiological explanations for observed cognitive benefits stemming from improvements to cardiovascular fitness following chronic aerobic exercise. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Healthy brain, healthy life: a review of diet and exercise interventions to promote brain health and reduce Alzheimer's disease risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme 2020-07-27

With the world's population aging at a rapid rate, the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has significantly increased. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The Role of Nutrition in Cognitive Function and Brain Ageing in the Elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Current nutrition reports 2018-09-01

Recent findings Results suggest that higher adherence to a healthy dietary pattern is associated with preservation of brain structure and function as well as slower cognitive decline, with the MIND diet substantially slowing cognitive decline, over and above the MeDi and DASH diets. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The relevance of nutrition for the concept of cognitive frailty

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care 2017-01-01

Physical and cognitive frailty are interrelated and synergistic syndromes more frequently seen in old age, which represent intermediate stages between aging successfully and disability. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A 24-Week Multi-Modality Exercise Program Improves Executive Control in Older Adults with a Self-Reported Cognitive Complaint: Evidence from the Antisaccade Task

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2017-01-01

Exercise programs involving aerobic and resistance training (i.e., multiple-modality) have shown promise in improving cognition and executive control in older adults at risk, or experiencing, cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Nursing home characteristics associated with tube feeding in advanced cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003-01-01

Assessment by a speech therapist, staffing ratios, advance directives, fiscal considerations, and specialized dementia units are potentially modifiable factors in nursing homes that may influence the practice of tube feeding in advanced cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

4430 Coffee Shops and Fast-food Restaurants: Potential Neighborhood Resources for Cognitive Health and Wellbeing Among Aging Americans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2020-06-01

OF IMPACT: The results contribute new evidence towards an emerging ecological model of cognitive health. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16,404 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Level of and Change in Cognitive Functioning among Dutch Older Adults: Does Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status Matter?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Das Gesundheitswesen 2016-09-15

Along with demographic changes, issues of age-related cognitive decline and impaired cognitive functioning have become more prevalent. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,200 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

From across this tag

9 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 9. The same 9 appear here every time.

↑ Change the filters

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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed