We found no studies on our primary outcome of global cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,183 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Low cognitive and brain reserve and limited cognitive stimulation are associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 6,742 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This meta-analysis provides evidence that CCT improves cognitive function in older people with MCI. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 690 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The possibilities of computer-based cognitive training (CCT) in postponing the onset of dementia are currently unclear, but promising. 4 key findings →
Participants: 631 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pilot study showed that functional tasks exercise using simulated functional tasks as a means of combined cognitive and exercise program is feasible and beneficial in improving the memory and functional status of older adults with mild cognitive impairment as well as reducing the care-related burdens of their caregivers. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 59 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The FINGER MRI exploratory sub-study did not show significant differences between the intervention and control groups on changes in regional brain volumes, regional cortical thicknesses, or WML volume after 2 years in at-risk elderly without substantial impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 132 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A 2-year lifestyle intervention was able to maintain the daily functioning of the at-risk older population. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on the current evidence, rTMS was an effective therapy for cognitive impairment in AD. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 240 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CCT is efficacious for overall and key cognitive domains in adults with MS, but efficacy on other outcomes and in progressive subtypes remains unclear. 2 key findings →
Participants: 982 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Computerized cognitive training significantly improved global cognitive function, which was supported by the improved brain plasticity. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study found that CT+Active tDCS did not produce greater memory improvement compared to CT+Sham tDCS. 5 key findings →
Participants: 68 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aerobic exercise combined with computerized cognitive training has better effects on the cognitive functional status of survivors of stroke than an active control. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients trained with CoRe showed a better evolution of cognitive decline, while untreated patients tended to get worse over time. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multi-model cognitive training help MCI patients to gained cognition benefit, especially in memory, attention and executive function. 4 key findings →
Participants: 78 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
69/100
The age of the population is shifting toward the elderly range, which may lead to an increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
Participants: 70 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During the aging process, physical capabilities (e.g., muscular strength) and cognitive functions (e.g., memory) gradually decrease. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CCT was most effective in cognitive rehabilitation, particularly in the subdomain of memory. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
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
Observational epidemiological studies provide valuable information regarding naturally occurring protective factors observed in populations with very low prevalences of vascular disease. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of the present study was to explore the effects of computer-based multidomain cognitive training program on Greek patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our review suggests that MNPIs may improve the global, executive function and memory of PWD in NHs. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
High adherence to the MIND diet was associated with a slower rate of cognitive decline after stroke. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 106 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Preliminary evidence suggests that protective effects of the MIND diet are geographically generalizable. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,220 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
So far, however, only few such multi-component trials have been launched, but yielding promising results. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,152 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
In an additional analysis stratifying the sample by weight status, the association between sleep quality and high adherence to the Mediterranean diet was observed only among normal/overweight individuals but not in obese participants. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,936 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 27,380 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 →