Patient and caregiver factors contribute to caregiver burden in persons living with PD. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high
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.
We investigated the effect of a multidomain lifestyle intervention on the risk of dementia estimated using the validated CAIDE risk score (post-hoc analysis). 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with cognitive profiles consistent with probable executive MCI were identified using simple assessments of global cognition, memory and executive functions in a community-dwelling older population. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 161 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is evidence that aerobic exercise improves brain health. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
150 dyads were randomised (FindMyApps n = 76, care-as-usual n = 74). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 76 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
By providing evidence for or against the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the FindMyApps intervention, the results of the trial will influence national implementation of FindMyApps. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The BTS implemented in MYB is focused on maximizing adherence and engagement with CCT over the short and long term in the setting of a fully digital trial, which, if successful, could be delivered economically at scale. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multidomain lifestyle modification is considered an effective intervention for dementia prevention due to its multifactorial nature. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Middle-aged multidomain risk reduction interventions targeting modifiable risk factors for dementia may delay or prevent a third of dementia cases in later life. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study showed no benefit of the CT program on working memory, processing speed and executive function. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among community-dwelling patients with moderate to severe dementia and their caregivers, dementia palliative care, compared with usual care, did not significantly improve patients' neuropsychiatric symptoms through 24 months. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 201 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older adults with higher triglyceride levels within the normal to high-normal range had a lower dementia risk and slower cognitive decline over time compared with individuals with lower triglyceride levels. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 13,976 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The hippocampus shrinks in late adulthood, leading to impaired memory and increased risk for dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 267 (3.8%) women had diabetes and 297 (4.2%) had IFG. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 267 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Because of the significant ramifications of falls, many interventions have been proposed, but few have aimed to prevent falls via an integrated approach targeting both motor and cognitive function. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 154 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
The Vivifrail exercise programme provided significant benefits in functional capacity over usual-care. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 88 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Promotion of person centred care and good practice in the management of patients with dementia with behavioural symptoms provides an effective alternative to neuroleptics. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use of ecologically oriented approaches with virtual reality (VR) depicting instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) is a promising approach for interventions on acquired brain injuries. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants in the experimental group had better overall subjective memory, subjective retrospective memory and global quality of life, with fewer depressive symptoms than those in the control group 3 months following the program. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Over six months, the intervention group showed a stable global cognitive function score (Mini Mental Status Examination), whereas the control group showed a cognitive decline (ANCOVA-interaction: F1, 14 = 5.083, p = .041; controlled for disease duration and education). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our sample had a mean age of 66.8 (SD = 5.3) years, a mean HAM-D score of 19.4 (SD = 7.5), and a mean PHQ-9 score of 18.0 (SD = 6.3). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
111,485 articles were initially retrieved; 288 full articles were reviewed and 89.6% subsequently deemed ineligible due to exclusion of participants with co-existence of dementia and Parkinsonism. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results are consistent with earlier studies in supporting the hypothesis that LMTM might be effective as monotherapy and that 4 mg twice a day may serve as well as higher doses. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 800 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This randomized trial followed 2,111 older adults at risk for cognitive decline across 5 US sites for two years, comparing a highly structured lifestyle program (regular exercise, MIND diet, cognitive/social engagement, health coaching) against a lower-intensity, self-guided version of the same components. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 2,111 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 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