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 1–15 of 15 studies by Mangialasche F · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

Subjects

Other 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.

A 2 year multidomain intervention of diet, exercise, cognitive training, and vascular risk monitoring versus control to prevent cognitive decline in at-risk elderly people (FINGER): a randomised controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. The Lancet 2015-03-12

This Finnish randomized controlled trial was the first large study to show that a two-year program combining diet counseling, exercise, cognitive training, and monitoring of heart-health risk factors could help maintain or improve thinking skills in older adults at elevated dementia risk, compared with a control group who received only general health advice. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Clinical trials and late-stage drug development for Alzheimer's disease: an appraisal from 1984 to 2014

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Journal of internal medicine 2014-03-01

The modern era of drug development for Alzheimer's disease began with the proposal of the cholinergic hypothesis of memory impairment and the 1984 research criteria for Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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

Designing an Internet-Based Multidomain Intervention for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: The HATICE Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2018-01-01

Despite differences in CVR management within the countries considered, it was possible to design and implement the HATICE multidomain intervention. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

How can dementia and disability be prevented in older adults: where are we today and where are we going?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Journal of internal medicine 2021-01-10

Ageing of the population, together with population growth, has brought along an ample increase in the number of older individuals living with dementia and disabilities. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

Effect of a CYP2D6 polymorphism on the efficacy of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-09-01

The single nucleotide polymorphism rs1080985 in the CYP2D6 gene may influence the clinical efficacy of donepezil in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate

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

Multidomain Interventions to Prevent Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer's Disease, and Dementia: From FINGER to World-Wide FINGERS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2020-01-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia are a global public health priority, and prevention has been highlighted as a pivotal component in managing the dementia epidemic. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

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

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on statistical design and analysis plans for multidomain intervention clinical trials: Experience from World-Wide FINGERS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2021-03-11

Robust approaches to study design and analysis are critical to negotiate issues related to the intervention. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Dementia prevention: current epidemiological evidence and future perspective

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2012-02-13

Dementia, a major cause of disability and institutionalization in older people, poses a serious threat to public health and to the social and economic development of modern society. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

Practical lessons from amyloid immunotherapy trials in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Current Alzheimer research 2012-12-01

More open debates of practical experiences from different trial centres and sponsors are essential for optimizing trial designs and improving conditions for participants. 2 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

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

Blood Biomarkers of Alzheimer’s Disease Neuropathology, Cognition, and Response to a Multidomain Lifestyle Intervention: Secondary analysis of the FINGER Randomized Controlled Dementia Risk Reduction Trial

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-06

Interventions targeting lifestyle and health behaviors support cognition in older adults at risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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