28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Initially, healthy older adults randomized to speed of processing cognitive training had a 29% reduction in their risk of dementia after 10 years of follow-up compared to the untreated control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,802 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Data collection and analysis We initially screened search results using a 'crowdsourcing' method in which members of Cochrane's citizen science platform identify RCTs. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 400 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The multidomain intervention showed no efficacy in preventing cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 531 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia) Risk Score is a validated tool estimating dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 112 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The included studies (n=15) assessed change in cognition in response to a multidomain lifestyle intervention. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a large dementia prevention trial with 6-year follow-up, dropout was associated with older age, poorer cognitive function, symptoms of depression, and disability at baseline. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,994 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The heterogeneous and multi-factorial nature of dementia requires the consideration of all health aspects when predicting the risk of its development and planning strategies for its prevention. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a highly invalidating condition and, given the progressive aging of the population, one of the major issues that health systems will have to face in future years. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Whether dietary and nutrition and dietary patterns are associated with the development of dementia is an interesting research question. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 340,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is type 1b evidence for gingko biloba in producing a modest benefit of cognitive function; cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of people with Lewy body disease (particularly neuropsychiatric symptoms); cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in treatment cognitive impairment associated with vascular dementia; and the effect of metal collating agents (although these should not be prescribed until more data on safety and efficacy are available). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Behavioral prevention strategies can help maintain high levels of cognition and functional integrity, and can reduce the social, medical, and economic burden associated with cognitive aging and age-associated neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study aims to assess the efficacy of the Big Brain Academy (BBA), a computerized cognitive training program (CT) based on video games, compared to the Integrated Psychostimulation Program (IPP), a classical CT tool for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Examination of the range and limits of cognitive reserve capacity (plasticity) by means of cognitive training is proffered as a promising diagnostic strategy for the early (premorbid) identification of dementia, particularly Alzheimer's disease, in nonclinical populations. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This multimodal intervention program demonstrated no effectiveness in mitigating cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The combinations that were both highly prevalent and had the most detrimental effect on global cognition were: hearing loss and physical inactivity for the dyad (mean difference in change score = -0.07 SD; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), hearing loss, physical inactivity, and hypertension for the triad (mean difference in change score = -0.07; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), and hearing loss, physical inactivity, hypertension, and sleep disturbance for the tetrad (mean difference in change score = -0.05; 95 % CI: -0.07 to -0.03; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.20). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30,097 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The VSOP/A group had significantly improved processing speed and attention performance compared to the VE group, and these differences persisted through 6 months postintervention. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multidomain intervention studies conducted so far appear to have mixed results and substantial variability in target populations, format and intensity of interventions, choice of control conditions, and outcome measures. 2 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A covariate-adjusted linear mixed model for the intention-to-treat sample (N = 353; mean age = 69.7) revealed a significant positive change in dementia literacy at 6 months (standardized change = 0.246; p = 0.012) and a significant improvement in self-efficacy at 12 months (standardized change = 0.157; p = 0.008). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 353 Evidence: moderate
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
Systematic cognitive training produces long-term improvement in cognitive function and less difficulty in performing activities of daily living. 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,802 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An influential review in 2010 concluded that non-pharmacological multi-component interventions have positive effects on cognitive functioning, activities of daily living, behaviour and mood of people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current evidence indicates that spaced-retrieval training is effective in enabling people with dementia to learn new information and behavioral strategies. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Participants numbered 3334 and had a median age of 62 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
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. 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →