27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia) Risk Score is a validated tool estimating dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 112 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive training in MCI may be enhanced by atDCS, but further delineation of the impact of current brain state, as well as temporal characteristics of multi-session atDCS-training application, may be needed to induce longer-lasting effects. 2 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multidomain intervention studies conducted so far appear to have mixed results and substantial variability in target populations, format and intensity of interventions, choice of control conditions, and outcome measures. 2 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL) function is a multifaceted construct that reflects functionality in different daily life situations. 2 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Along with rapid global population aging, the age-related cognitive disorders such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia have posed a serious threat to public health, health care system, and sustainable economic and societal development of all countries. 1 key finding →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggest that HB-CCT via Neurotablet can effectively enhance specific cognitive abilities in PD, supporting the role of digital, home-based interventions as feasible strategies to mitigate cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multidomain interventions were associated with improvements on locomotion (as measured by performance-based tests of lower-limb function) and vitality (as measured by handgrip strength); benefits on cognitive function were also found, in particular among populations at increased risk of dementia and when operationalizing strong multidomain interventions (eg, using regular exercise training instead of physical activity advices). 5 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Epidemiological studies suggest that higher MedDiet adherence is associated with slower cognitive decline, reduced conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease, and better motor and non-motor outcomes in Parkinson’s disease. 5 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The demographic transition during the recent decades has resulted in an increase in older adults globally. 2 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of senile dementia, accounting for up to 70% of dementia cases. 3 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this narrative review, a theoretical framework on the crosstalk between physical exercise and blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability is presented. 5 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Frailty syndrome encompasses several physical hallmarks such as loss of muscle strength, power output and mass, which leads to poor gait ability, fatigue, falls and overall difficulty to perform activities of daily living. 1 key finding →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The MIND diet may buffer the cognitive consequences of cerebrovascular pathology and cortical atrophy in older adults at elevated dementia risk and promote cognitive resilience over general healthy eating guidelines. 2 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The primary analysis demonstrated significant improvements in multiple episodic memory measures across both intervention groups, with no significant differences observed between groups. 5 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This narrative review examines literature pertaining to possible physiological explanations for observed cognitive benefits stemming from improvements to cardiovascular fitness following chronic aerobic exercise. 5 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This diet has been shown to improve cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, vascular cognitive impairment, and vascular dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This narrative review focused on research investigating the impact of loneliness on the prevalence of dementia and its relationship with other risk factors. 2 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →