Dementia and mild cognitive impairment are significant contributors to disability and dependency in older adults. 5 key findings →
Participants: 67 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
These results provide further support for behavioral interventions for persons with MCI. 4 key findings →
Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
We included 49 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 14 to 91,948 participants (>200,000 total) and a median sample size of 145. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 49 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As the first NMA comparing different interventions for AD and MCI, our study suggests that PE and CCT might have a significant improvement in cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms respectively. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,747 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
82/100
Tau accumulation in patients with Alzheimer's disease tracks closely with cognitive decline and plays a role in the later stages of disease progression. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 108 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 57 articles were included in the review, including 3182 participants. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,182 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides corroborating evidence that solanezumab does not slow cognitive decline in preclinical AD as exhibited with a computerized cognitive assessment with some evidence that solanezumab may exacerbate cognition on select digital outcomes. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,117 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia is an important public health goal. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 11,140 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Our findings show that the first months of the outbreak did not significantly impact the cognition, quality of life, perceived health status, and depression of our study population when making comparisons with baseline assessments prior to the outbreak. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To assess for potential differences in cognitive test scoring when using a remote platform, and where a remote screener was compared to the equivalent face-to-face test. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,075 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
However, crossword puzzles might result in cognitively beneficial remodeling between the DMN and other networks in more severely impaired MCI subjects, parallel to the observed clinical benefits. 4 key findings →
Participants: 107 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
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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