27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In older adults with multiple dementia risk factors, group-based CCT is a safe and effective intervention for enhancing overall cognition, memory and processing speed. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 80 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 68 studies were included in the meta-analyses. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In AD a clinical recommendation can be made for NEURO-AD TM system and for high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) as probably effective protocols (B-level of evidence) and for anodal tDCS over the left DLPFC as a possibly effective. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings suggest that VR training is an effective treatment for both people with MCI and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The intervention effect was found in delayed verbal memory. 4 key findings →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging is associated with cognitive declines leading to mild cognitive impairments or Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This population-based study in community-dwellers aged 70 years or over suggested that multidomain intervention and n3 PUFA supplementation have not significant effects on cognitive function change in frail older adults with memory complaints. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our analyses support that MNPI could improve the global cognition in older adults with MCI. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Effective learning in old age, particularly in those at risk for dementia, is essential for prolonging independent living. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive activity participation is associated with lower risk of development of amnestic mild cognitive impairment, even after excluding individuals at early stages of dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 58 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At 20 months 12.3% of the MCI group progressed to dementia, 62.9% continued to meet MCI criteria, and 24.7% reverted to unimpaired levels of function. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 106 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher adherence to the MedDiet was associated with greater gut microbial diversity (p < 0.05) and distinct microbial composition (PERMANOVA, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 746 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The overall adherence rate to MI was 84.7%. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CCT is efficacious on global cognition, select cognitive domains, and psychosocial functioning in people with mild cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Declines in various cognitive abilities, particularly executive control functions, are observed in older adults. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A healthy lifestyle was associated with a longer life expectancy among men and women, and they lived a larger proportion of their remaining years without Alzheimer's dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive training is a popular intervention aimed at attenuating age-related cognitive decline, however, the effects of this intervention on brain structure and function have not been thoroughly explored. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Successfully assisting older adults to maintain or improve cognitive function, particularly when they are dealing with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), remains a major challenge. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Intervention participants with MCI self-reported, or demonstrated, improved functioning across a range of cognitive (global cognitive function, executive function, processing speed, memory, attention, mood, emotion, motivation, brain cortex, orientation), and physical (gait, balance, mobility) outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The present study investigates whether a combined cognitive and physical training may induce changes in the cortical activity as measured via electroencephalogram (EEG) and whether this change may index a deceleration of pathological processes of brain aging. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We concluded that cognitive training along with active tDCS is a useful combined approach in the management of mood and cognitive dysfunctions in PD. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results suggest that standard and tailored cognitive training may improve executive function, attention/working memory, and memory in PD. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite some positive findings, the inaccurate definitions of CT, inadequate sample sizes, unclear randomization methods, incomplete datasets at follow-up and multiple testing may have inflated the results in many trials. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The growing prevalence of neurodegenerative disorders associated with aging and cognitive decline has generated increasing cross-disciplinary interest in non-pharmacological interventions, such as computerized cognitive training (CCT), which may prevent or slow cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It is unclear what non-pharmacological interventions to prevent cognitive decline should comprise. 3 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →