Sixteen trials, including 11,402 participants (mean age 73.2 [±5.5] years; 62.3 % female) were examined. 5 key findings →
Participants: 11,402 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
An 18-month multimodal intervention for older adults at risk of dementia could improve their cognitive function. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
84/100
The multidomain intervention showed no efficacy in preventing cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 531 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The APOE4 allele, but not AD-GRS, was associated with baseline lower hippocampus volume (β = -0.27, p = 0.001), greater amyloid deposition (β = 0.48, p = 0.001), 2-year decline in hippocampus (β = -0.27, p = 0.01), total gray matter volume (β = -0.25, p = 0.01), and cortical thickness (β = -0.28, p = 0.003). 5 key findings →
Participants: 126 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a common medical condition in the ageing population, and cognitive intervention is a non-pharmacologic strategy to improve cognitive functions. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,489 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The AgeWell.de intervention reduced dementia risk. 1 key finding →
Participants: 461 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Primary outcome was feasibility of the multimodal intervention, evaluated by recruitment rate during a 6-month recruitment phase, overall adherence in each intervention arm, and 6-month retention rate. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 93 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The effects were not statistically significant on other outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The intervention was feasible and acceptable with the intended number of participants completing the study. 5 key findings →
Participants: 104 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Screening commenced in July 2022. Currently, 1,965 participants have been randomized into lifestyle intervention (n = 772) and control groups (n = 1,193). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 772 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet seems a promising approach to preserve brain function during aging. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Within 17 months, participant recruitment has been successfully completed (N = 1210; mean age: 67.7 years (SD: 4.6); 64% female). 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The cognitive impairment cohort (n = 14,175) included participants without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 14,175 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Greater MIND diet adherence was associated with decreased risk of cognitive impairment in female participants but not male participants, with no difference between Black participants and White participants. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 14,145 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This systematic review highlights the critical roles of engagement, persistence and adherence in augmenting the efficacy of cognitive training. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 55 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 586 included decedents, 415 (70.8%) were female, 171 (29.2%) were male, and the mean (SD) age at death was 90.9 (6.0) years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 754 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Exercise training is an important strategy to counteract cognitive and brain health decline during aging. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis 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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated