27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Effective, scalable dementia prevention interventions are needed to address modifiable risk factors given global burden of dementia and challenges in developing disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 6,104 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Initially, healthy older adults randomized to speed of processing cognitive training had a 29% reduction in their risk of dementia after 10 years of follow-up compared to the untreated control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,802 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Of 300 randomized participants, 277 participants (mean age, 72.9 years; 69.3% female) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (142 in the MLI group and 135 in the control group). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 277 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among cognitively unimpaired participants with a family history of dementia, changes in cognition and brain MRI outcomes from baseline to year 3 did not differ significantly between those who followed the MIND diet and those who followed the control diet with mild caloric restriction. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 604 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Modifiable vascular and lifestyle-related risk factors have been associated with dementia risk in observational studies. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 631 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 34 239 patients enrolled, 24 065 had lengths of stay of at least 72 hours and were included in the primary analytic sample (10 313 in the default order group and 13 752 in the usual care group; 13 338 [55.4%] women; mean age, 77.9 years). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 239 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggest that a hearing intervention might reduce cognitive change over 3 years in populations of older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline but not in populations at decreased risk for cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 858 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Between March 1, 2016, and March 12, 2020, 383 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 383 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The interventions were positively perceived, with 72.0% finding the consultation informative and 69.2% considering the app useful. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 188 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adults aged 65+ are at highest risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and prior to the distribution of vaccines in the U.S., were strongly advised to quarantine at home to reduce risk of infection. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 156 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of multidomain intervention (MI) tailored to the Korean context. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 51 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Subgroup analyses included (i) MCI versus mild AD; (ii) with versus without concomitant AD medications; and (iii) Apolipoprotein E (ApoE4) carriers versus non-carriers. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,010 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between July 22, 2014, and May 17, 2018, 261 participants entered the open-label phase. 211 were randomly assigned losartan (n=105) or placebo (n=106). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 105 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Significant study-site, specimen type, and batch effects were observed. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 604 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Epidemiologic studies suggest that a Mediterranean diet, an antioxidant-rich cardioprotective dietary pattern, delays cognitive decline, but clinical trial evidence is lacking. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 447 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 33,995 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 treatment group had no EM after intervention completion (assessed at 3-month follow-up), a significantly lower rate than the control group (treatment = 0%, control = 23.1%, p = 0.010). 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 80 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Baseline assessments were conducted on 133 family caregivers of veterans living with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 67 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,791 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intervention did not improve global cognitive performance. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 819 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current pharmacologic therapies are for symptomatic AD patients, whereas nonpharmacologic training is administrable before symptom onset. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 125 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Providing multidomain lifestyle training through a web-platform is feasible and well-accepted, but the training should be challenging enough and adequately progress according to participants' capabilities to increase adherence. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 54 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Vascular management takes place every 3-6 months or otherwise as specified by study physicians. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,200 Evidence: high
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 27,380 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.
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 →