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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We identified fifty studies (N=1,548,754). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,548,754 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Vision impairment (VI) and eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma and cataract have been reported to be associated with cognitive impairment and dementia, however, to date, very little attempt has been made to collate and synthesizes such literature. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 232 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this meta-analysis of phase III trials in AD, we found that monoclonal antibodies against Aβ induced clinical improvements of small effect sizes, biomarker improvements of large effect sizes, and increases in risk for the hallmark adverse event, ARIA, by a large effect size, when all drugs were pooled together. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 12,585 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The analysis included 8 randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6547 participants. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,547 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The efficacy and safety of anti-amyloid mAbs in AD may differ based on patients' demographic and genetic factors. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 5,633 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
28 studies (total n = 1337 participants, average age 79-90 years) were included in the systematic review, of which 21 could be meta-analyzed. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,337 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The risk-benefit profile of anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear, especially concerning their safety and overall effects on AD progression and cognitive function. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 14,980 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
76/100
Cognitive impairment is a central non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD), and there are no established treatments. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 679 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pooling 29 studies and over 2 million people, this meta-analysis found that people who were more physically active, especially at moderate-to-vigorous intensity, had a notably lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, though the protective association was stronger in studies with shorter follow-up periods. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,068,519 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides a quantitative synthesis of the prospective associations between personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness) and the risk of incident Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 30,036 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Non-pharmacological therapies, such as physical activity interventions, are an appealing alternative or add-on to current pharmacological treatment of cognitive symptoms in patients with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 802 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
It is unclear to what extent poor social relationships are related to the development of dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Diabetes, even prediabetes and changes of diabetes-related biochemical indicators, predicted increased incidence of cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease, a progressive neurodegenerative pathology, is characterized by the accumulation of Amyloid-β plaques in the brain. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
On meta-analysis, PARO had no ST or LT compared to UC or AC over 5-12 weeks on agitation (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 153 participants: pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.25; - 0.57 to 0.06; LT vs UC; 2 trials, 77 participants, SMD = -0.24; - 0.94, 0.46), cognition (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 128 participants: SMD= 0.03; -0.32, 0.38), overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 169 participants: SMD= -0.01; -0.32, 0.29; ST vs AC, 2 trials, 145 participants: SMD =0.02, -0.71, 0.85), apathy (ST vs AC, 2 trials, 81 participants: SMD= 0.14; 0.29, 0.58), depression (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 181 participants; SMD= 0.08; -0.52, 0.69; LT vs UC: 2 trials, 77 participants: SMD =0.01; -0.75, 0.77), anxiety (ST vs UC: 2 trials, 104 participants, SMD= 0.24; -0.85, 1.33) and quality of life (ST vs UC, 2 trials, 127 participants: SMD=-0.05; -0.52, 0.42; ST vs AC: 2 trials, 159 participants, SMD =-0.36, -0.76, 0.05). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 153 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Accumulating evidence demonstrates that metabolic changes in the brain associated with neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction play an important role in the pathophysiology of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Combining physical exercise with cognitive training is a popular intervention in dementia prevention trials and guidelines. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 68 studies were included in the meta-analyses. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review highlights that air pollutions, especially PM 2.5 and NO 2 play important role in the risk for age-related cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
It is unclear what non-pharmacological interventions to prevent cognitive decline should comprise. 3 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Combined cognitive and physical exercise interventions have potential to elicit cognitive benefits in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nineteen cross-sectional studies that investigated 19.734 community-dwelling and institutionalized older adults free of disability and dementia were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Inflammation is increasingly implicated as a risk factor for dementia, stroke, and small vessel disease (SVD). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →