31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Between March 1, 2016, and March 12, 2020, 383 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 383 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The interventions were positively perceived, with 72.0% finding the consultation informative and 69.2% considering the app useful. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 188 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants were empowered, learning that lifestyle might impact AD risk, exhibiting positive behavioral changes thus far. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 104 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Profiles of high risk for future dementia are well understood and are likely to concern mostly those in low-income and middle-income countries and people at greater disadvantage in high-income countries. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,400 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study has the potential to provide the first evidence of the effectiveness of information communication technology and Internet of Things in incident dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,749 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our preliminary findings suggest that web-based cognitive training programs may benefit African Americans with MCI at least as much as Caucasians, and highlight the need to further study underrepresented minorities in AD prevention trials. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 105 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventy-four participants completed the study. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Levels of apathy decreased slightly in both groups (mean decrease in AES-I of .61 points, 95% CI -3.54, 2.33 for TBI and .36 points, 95% CI -3.27, 2.55 for CAS). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 162 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The present study will address several shortcomings of previous CCT studies. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 162 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The iCST app was deemed usable and enjoyable. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 3-minute START task offers a means of supporting cognitive health in older adults and could be used at scale and within a precision medicine approach to reduce risk of cognitive decline in a targeted way. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 6,544 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR) is a syndrome characterized by subjective memory complaints and slow walking speeds that can identify older adults at increased risk for developing Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia (ADRD). 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 79 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The pilot study showed significant cognitive improvement (P<.001), reduced depression (P=.002), and decreased state anxiety (P=.001) post intervention. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The primary outcome is the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 6 months (as a continuous variable). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 434 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study investigated the effect of a home-based computerized cognitive training program that utilizes a digital application for training abacus-based mental calculations, "SoroTouch," on the cognitive functions of healthy middle-aged and older people using a randomized controlled trial. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
150 dyads were randomised (FindMyApps n = 76, care-as-usual n = 74). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 76 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
By providing evidence for or against the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the FindMyApps intervention, the results of the trial will influence national implementation of FindMyApps. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The BTS implemented in MYB is focused on maximizing adherence and engagement with CCT over the short and long term in the setting of a fully digital trial, which, if successful, could be delivered economically at scale. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multidomain lifestyle modification is considered an effective intervention for dementia prevention due to its multifactorial nature. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Middle-aged multidomain risk reduction interventions targeting modifiable risk factors for dementia may delay or prevent a third of dementia cases in later life. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study showed no benefit of the CT program on working memory, processing speed and executive function. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use of ecologically oriented approaches with virtual reality (VR) depicting instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) is a promising approach for interventions on acquired brain injuries. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants in the experimental group had better overall subjective memory, subjective retrospective memory and global quality of life, with fewer depressive symptoms than those in the control group 3 months following the program. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Over six months, the intervention group showed a stable global cognitive function score (Mini Mental Status Examination), whereas the control group showed a cognitive decline (ANCOVA-interaction: F1, 14 = 5.083, p = .041; controlled for disease duration and education). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our sample had a mean age of 66.8 (SD = 5.3) years, a mean HAM-D score of 19.4 (SD = 7.5), and a mean PHQ-9 score of 18.0 (SD = 6.3). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 31,380 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 Where this research is being discussed: events