The Mediterranean diet (MD) has shown to reduce the occurrence of several chronic diseases. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 16,160 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
76/100
Cohort studies suggest that the Mediterranean diet is associated with better global cognition in older adults, slower cognitive decline and lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 249,511 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this cohort of French older adults, higher adherence to the French MIND diet was associated with a lower dementia risk and with preserved white matter microstructure. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,412 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A healthy lifestyle was associated with a longer life expectancy among men and women, and they lived a larger proportion of their remaining years without Alzheimer's dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher vitamin D intake is associated with decreased risk of dementia in a multiethnic cohort. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 329 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the present study, higher adherence to MeDi was associated with a reduced risk for dementia and cognitive decline in a traditional Mediterranean population. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Greater adherence to hPDI, MDS, RFS, and MIND was individually associated with larger brain volumes in specific regions. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114,684 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aim of this study was to investigate whether adherence to conventional dietary recommendations or to a modified Mediterranean diet are associated with a subsequent lower risk of developing all-cause dementia, Alzheimer disease (AD), vascular dementia (VaD), or with future accumulation of AD-related β-amyloid (Aβ) pathology. 5 key findings →
Participants: 738 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Oldest-old eating less and having diets with less variety and nutrient density were more frequent among subjects with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,390 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
Cognitive decline and dementia have a deep impact on the health and quality of life of older subjects and their caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study found no evidence that major lifestyle factors, aside from smoking, or sleep duration influence the risk of dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 3,755 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adherence to Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) may lower the risk of dementia by impacting immunity and cholesterol, which are pathways also implicated by genome-wide association studies of Alzheimer’s Dementia (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,449 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The sample included 55.6% patients with MCI and 56 people with SCD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 55 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a major global health challenge, as its burden on society will increase with population aging. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
117 participants have complete data (mean age: 73 ± 7.4). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 150 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
When systematically reviewed using the USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review method and an a priori established protocol, a common theme emerged: diets characterized by higher consumption of vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, fish, seafood, and unsaturated vegetable oils, alongside lower intake of red and processed meats and sugar-sweetened beverages, are consistently associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline and dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants in the highest versus lowest MedDiet and MIND categories had 21% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.84) and 14% (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.91) lower dementia risk, respectively. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
43/100
Dementia, a syndrome characterized by a decline in cognitive function beyond what is expected from normal aging, poses a significant global health challenge. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes, and dementia are increasing in the United States (US) population. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
42/100
Individuals with Alzheimer’s dementia exhibited poorer nutritional status (EdFED: 8.0 vs. 2.0; NUFFE: 10.0 vs. 7.0; both p < 0.001) and lower adherence to the Mediterranean diet (6.0 vs. 7.0; p = 0.050). 3 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Each 10% increase in UPF intake was associated with lower attention scores (-0.05 points) and higher dementia risk (+0.24 points), independent of Mediterranean diet adherence. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,104 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Women are more prone than men to develop age-related dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →