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
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
Cognitive training is an emerging non-pharmacological treatment to improve cognitive and physical function in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The primary outcome is episodic memory function, improved hippocampal function during memory tasks will be a secondary outcome. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We performed a meta-analysis to examine the aggregate levels of serum BDNF in patients with AD and individuals with MCI, in comparison with healthy controls. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,067 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants allocated to CR received 10 weekly sessions over 3 months and four maintenance sessions over 6 months. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 475 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The outcomes obtained from the E.Mu.N.I. study will clarify the efficacy of multilevel non-pharmacologic interventions on cognitive and neuroimaging markers in SMD individuals. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, this cross-cultural feasibility study in Japanese users demonstrated that the various engagement metrics were significantly correlated, and greater engagement was related to improved nutrition scores and increased time exercising. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 559 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We evaluated the performance of CSF biomarkers for predicting risk of clinical decline and conversion to dementia in non-demented patients with cognitive symptoms. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 619 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mailings are cost-effective, but direct contact improved recruitment. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Non-ART polypharmacy is common among PLWH and associated with an increasing risk of hospitalization and mortality [1]; thus, nonpharmacologic management of comorbidities is critical for PLWH who may experience an earlier onset and a greater burden of comorbidities. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caregiving strain will be collected from care partner/family member only. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This systematic review will summarise existing high-quality primary studies on computerised-cognitive interventions for MCI and dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review 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 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.
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 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