The sample included 55.6% patients with MCI and 56 people with SCD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 55 Evidence: low
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.
Mediterranean diet is a term used to describe the traditional eating habits of people in Crete, South Italy and other Mediterranean countries. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Accumulating research has linked Mediterranean diet (MeDi) adherence with slower cognitive decline and reduced Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk. 4 key findings →
Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
52/100
In women at higher risk of cognitive decline due to vascular disease or risk factors, adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was not associated with subsequent 5-year cognitive change. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cogmed was better on one core WM measure and had higher ratings of satisfaction. 5 key findings →
Participants: 68 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The MEPA screener captures several components of the Mediterranean style pattern, although further testing of the MEPA screener is indicated. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 49 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dogs develop cognitive decline and a progressive accumulation of oxidative damage. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We used Cox proportional hazard analyses to examine prospective predictors of driving cessation over a 3-year period. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,838 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, our results highlight that the likelihood of progression from MCI to dementia is very similar to that of reversion from MCI to NC. 4 key findings →
Participants: 985 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Diet may be an important modifiable risk factor for maintenance of cognitive health in later life. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,499 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Studies have yielded clues to the etiology and natural history of cognitive impairment in PD, but much remains unclear and effective therapies are needed. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging is associated with progressive changes in learning and memory. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Mediterranean diet is currently considered a functional diet with an increasing amount of scientific evidence that supports its beneficial effects in human health. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fish consumption may be associated with slower cognitive decline with age. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Previous studies suggest physical activity improves cognition and lowers Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk. 3 key findings →
Participants: 116 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The combinations that were both highly prevalent and had the most detrimental effect on global cognition were: hearing loss and physical inactivity for the dyad (mean difference in change score = -0.07 SD; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), hearing loss, physical inactivity, and hypertension for the triad (mean difference in change score = -0.07; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), and hearing loss, physical inactivity, hypertension, and sleep disturbance for the tetrad (mean difference in change score = -0.05; 95 % CI: -0.07 to -0.03; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.20). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30,097 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive training produced a significant, moderate improvement in cognitive task performance (Hedges’ g = 0.451, 95% CI 0.207–0.696; p < .001). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sarcopenia and its components were associated with baseline MMSE and MMSE changes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The VSOP/A group had significantly improved processing speed and attention performance compared to the VE group, and these differences persisted through 6 months postintervention. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This olive oil-cognition association needs to be confirmed by further studies. 3 key findings →
Participants: 6,947 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 6321 participants (mean [SE] age, 56.1 [0.18] years at visit 1; n = 4077 women [57.8%]) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,077 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
50/100
Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, demyelinating disease of the CNS. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among older adults, MeDi adherence was associated with less brain atrophy, with an effect similar to 5 years of aging. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
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
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a multifactorial 'healthy brain ageing cognitive training program' for Parkinson's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 50 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