EGb 761 ® is currently recommended in multiple guidelines for the symptomatic treatment of MCI. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Dementia is a major global health challenge, as its burden on society will increase with population aging. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias are now the seventh leading cause of death in the world and are projected to affect 115.4 million people by 2050. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Computer-based cognitive training might have beneficial effects on the general cognitive functions in early stage of Alzheimer's dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This untargeted metabolomics study identified potential biomarkers for cognitive function in a cohort of Puerto Rican older adults. 2 key findings →
Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adherence to the MIND diet was associated with better cognitive function at baseline and over 8 years of follow-up; however, MIND diet was not associated with 8-year cognitive trajectory. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Studies supporting the notion that physical activity and exercise can help alleviate the negative impact of age on the body and the mind abound. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this review we summarize the epidemiological, cross-sectional, and interventional studies examining the association between physical activity and brain volume, function, and risk for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a separate validation set, the Union Signature demonstrates clinically relevant properties. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
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
50/100
The intervention showed no effect on follow-up SUVRs in a covariance analysis with group allocation, baseline intervention SUVR, age, sex, and baseline Mini-Mental State Examination as predictors. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At baseline, the mean MNA score was 22.5 ± 2.3. 5 key findings →
Participants: 105 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant improvement in mental flexibility and planning abilities was observed in both groups (as measured by the Zoo planning test), but no other neuropsychological tests showed improvement. 5 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At baseline, 219 participants (18%) had CF. The risk for developing CF at 2 years was higher in the control group (risk ratio [RR], 1.88, p = .003). 5 key findings →
Participants: 401 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex and progressive neurodegenerative disorder with a continuum of stages ranging from preclinical/asymptomatic phase to severe dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A covariate-adjusted linear mixed model for the intention-to-treat sample (N = 353; mean age = 69.7) revealed a significant positive change in dementia literacy at 6 months (standardized change = 0.246; p = 0.012) and a significant improvement in self-efficacy at 12 months (standardized change = 0.157; p = 0.008). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 353 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant improvement over time was observed in aggregated domain specific composite scores of episodic and semantic memory and spatial abilities. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 155 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multidomain interventions may benefit younger older adults or those with overly strict or lenient HbA1c control; however, these findings need confirmation in future studies. 3 key findings →
Participants: 531 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A repeated measures ANOVA showed that in comparison to the control group, both intervention groups significantly improved mood, quality of life, MIND diet score and all COM-B components at follow-up (p < 0.05). 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Out of 180 subjects, 74 showed short-term training gain transfer that was maintained over 3 months in 19 subjects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 235 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This work was supported by a Crossover grant (Maintaining Optimal Cognitive Functioning In Aging [MOCIA] 17611) of the Dutch Research Council (NWO), granted in December 2019. 5 key findings →
Participants: 102 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
117 participants have complete data (mean age: 73 ± 7.4). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 150 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intricate relationship between dietary habits and cognitive function is gaining increasing attention, with a focus on the gut-brain axis as a modifiable target for intervention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Physical as well as cognitive training interventions improve specific cognitive functions but effects barely generalize on global cognition. 4 key findings →
Participants: 237 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found no strong associations with development of cognitive dysfunction for any of the dietary patterns investigated. 4 key findings →
Participants: 564 Evidence: moderate
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 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.
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 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 →