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 1–25 of 39 studies by Soininen H (page 1 of 2) · 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 1-year, randomized, placebo-controlled study of donepezil in patients with mild to moderate AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100. Neurology 2001-08-01

As the first 1-year, multinational, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of a cholinesterase inhibitor in AD, these data support donepezil as a well tolerated and effective long-term treatment for patients with AD, with benefits over placebo on global assessment, cognition, and ADL. 3 key findings →

Participants: 286 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Leisure-time physical activity at midlife and the risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2005-11-01

Leisure-time physical activity at midlife at least twice a week was associated with a reduced risk of dementia and AD (odds ratio [OR] 0.48 [95% CI 0.25-0.91] and 0.38 [0.17-0.85], respectively), even after adjustments for age, sex, education, follow-up time, locomotor disorders, APOE genotype, vascular disorders, smoking, and alcohol drinking. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,449 Evidence: moderate

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

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

Safety and tolerability of the γ-secretase inhibitor avagacestat in a phase 2 study of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2012-11-01

Avagacestat dosed at 25 and 50 mg daily was relatively well tolerated and had low discontinuation rates. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 209 Evidence: high

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

Random Forest ensembles for detection and prediction of Alzheimer's disease with a good between-cohort robustness

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2014-08-28

Computer-aided diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a rapidly developing field of neuroimaging with strong potential to be used in practice. 4 key findings →

Participants: 165 Evidence: moderate

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

Healthy Ageing Through Internet Counselling in the Elderly: the HATICE randomised controlled trial for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. BMJ open 2016-06-10

Recruitment of 2600 older people (≥65 years) at increased risk of cardiovascular disease will take place in the Netherlands, Finland and France. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Nutrient intake and dietary changes during a 2-year multi-domain lifestyle intervention among older adults: secondary analysis of the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) randomised controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. The British journal of nutrition 2017-08-01

Advancing age increases the risk for diseases and health concerns like cognitive decline, constituting a major public health challenge. 1 key finding →

Participants: 631 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Injury markers predict time to dementia in subjects with MCI and amyloid pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2012-09-26

In subjects with MCI and evidence of amyloid pathology, the injury markers CSF t-tau and p-tau and hippocampal atrophy can predict further cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 110 Evidence: moderate

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

Modifiable lifestyle factors in dementia: a systematic review of longitudinal observational cohort studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2014-01-01

Broad consensus emerged on the protective role against dementia of leisure activities. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 26 Evidence: high

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

AddNeuroMed and ADNI: similar patterns of Alzheimer's atrophy and automated MRI classification accuracy in Europe and North America

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. NeuroImage 2011-07-01

The European Union AddNeuroMed program and the US-based Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) are two large multi-center initiatives designed to collect and validate biomarker data for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,074 Evidence: moderate

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

↑ 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