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
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
These results suggest pairing tDCS with cognitive training enhances functional connectivity and working memory performance in older adults, and thus may hold promise as a method for remediating age-related cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results also suggest that grammatical reasoning and episodic memory should be targeted in developing appropriate outcome measures to assess efficacy of future interventions, and in developing cognitive training programmes to prevent or delay cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 65,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prospective studies are needed to validate current findings. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
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
However, the brain plasticity associated with these proposed benefits of combined therapy has not yet been investigated in elderly subjects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 61 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, enjoyment and acceptance of casual game characteristics was high and significantly above the midpoint of the rating scale for all CVG genres. 5 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older adults with mild dementia demonstrated worse baseline cognitive performance than participants without dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 72 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The present work contributes to the literature on ICT usability needs of users with MCI. 3 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Early and accurate diagnosis of MCI provides a window of opportunity to improve the outcomes using a multimodal management approach including lifestyle risk factor modification and consideration of the multinutrient Souvenaid. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article describes the protocol for the Systematic Multi-domain Alzheimer's Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a single-blind randomized pilot trial to test a personalized, pragmatic, multi-domain Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk reduction intervention in a US integrated healthcare delivery system. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cerebrovascular dysfunction likely contributes causally to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Participants: 44 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A growing body of evidence supports that aerobic exercise can decrease the risk of future cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recently, transfer learning has been successfully applied in early diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) based on multi-domain data. 1 key finding →
Participants: 807 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Behavioral and social research has stressed the importance of multi-domain lifestyle interventions to prevent, delay, or remedy age-related cognitive decline among older adults at high risk for dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 59 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Given the importance of identifying dementia prodromes for future treatment efforts, we examined two methods of diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and determined whether empirically-derived MCI subtypes of these diagnostic methods were consistent with one another as well as with conventional MCI subtypes (i.e., amnestic, non-amnestic, single-domain, multi-domain). 2 key findings →
Participants: 134 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 90 participants included in the analyses, 34 had moderate to severe WMH. 5 key findings →
Participants: 154 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
The Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has been related to a lower risk of dementia and better cognitive function. 4 key findings →
Participants: 45,906 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our analysis revealed that 26.40% of the participants had mild cognitive impairment, whereas 48.50% demonstrated low adherence to the MIND diet. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 462 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MCI patients showed significantly reduced plasma levels of TGF-β1 and increased TNF-α concentrations compared to other participants. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 37 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
COG-T CHD is the first clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in patients with coronary heart disease, filling an important gap in the treatment evidence for cognitive digital therapy. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed no mediation of individual risk factors in the effect of the interventions on dementia incidence. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,679 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 403 participants (mean age 56.4 ± 5.7 years, 62.5% female), the median number of dementia risk factors was 5.0; hyperlipidaemia (92.5%), low cognitive activity (72.5%), obesity (57.6%), and hypertension (52.7%) were the most prevalent. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 403 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive decline and dementia represent major and growing global health challenges, driven largely by population aging and increased longevity. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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