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
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
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
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →