Good levels of participation, adherence, and retention appear to be achievable for participants through age 85 years. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 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.
Our study confirmed the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for improving cognition or slowing down the progression of cognitive impairment in AD patients and recommended several interventions for clinical practice. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 682 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher MCI prevalence was identified in community-dwelling older adult populations in China compared with some other countries, possibly due to more broadened criteria being adopted for confirming the diagnosis. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 112,632 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The SYNERGIC Trial will establish the efficacy and feasibility of a multimodal intervention to improve cognitive performance and mobility outcomes in MCI. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SMART will provide a novel evaluation of the immediate and long term benefits of CT, PRT, and combined CT and PRT on global cognitive function and brain morphology, as well as potential underlying mechanisms of adaptation in older adults at risk of further cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
If results from this study show benefits for cognition at trial completion, CCT programs, alone or in combination with walking, might be a strategy to promote healthy cognitive aging in older adults. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive-motor dual-task training was more beneficial than single-task training alone in improving broader domains of cognitive functions of elderly persons, and the improvement was not directly due to modulating Aβ metabolism. 4 key findings →
Participants: 27 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 228 articles were screened at the title and abstract levels, and 120 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 23 eligible studies were included in the narrative synthesis. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 228 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although antipsychotics were associated with greater harm than antidepressants and anticonvulsants in subgroups of persons with dementia, medications used in lieu of antipsychotics for treating neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia, such as anticonvulsants and dextromethorphan-quinidine, were also associated with harm. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 209 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Studies varied widely in size and quality and therefore we must be circumspect in our conclusions. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Technology-based cognitive training and rehabilitation interventions show promise, but the findings were inconsistent due to the variations in study design. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of all studies included in this systematic review, results from the highest quality studies, which were two randomized controlled trials, demonstrated that multi-domain CCT could lead to increases in hippocampal functional connectivity. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As one of few meta-analyses comparing different quantities of physical activity and exercise interventions for AD in details, our study suggests that physical activity and exercise can improve cognition of older adults with AD. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 673 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This meta-review supports the conclusion that being a caregiver for people with dementia is associated with psychological stress and physical ill-health. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Not only dementia diagnosis but also time spent with the diagnosis was crucial for the use of LTC in the month preceding death, in particular residential care. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,294 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Previous conclusions of a lack of efficacy for cognitive training in MCI may have been influenced by not clearly defining the intervention. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 305 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intervention effect was found in delayed verbal memory. 4 key findings →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Interventions using educational outreach, on-site education given alone or as part of an intervention package and pharmacist medication review may under certain circumstances reduce inappropriate drug use, but the evidence is of low quality. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
There is little evidence that interventions aimed at supporting and/or providing information to carers of people with dementia are uniformly effective. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on the psychometric qualities and criteria regarding sensitivity and clinical utility, we conclude that PACSLAC and DOLOPLUS2 are the most appropriate scales currently available. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The majority of residents were stable in their care dependency status over two subsequent 6-month periods. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The MDS-ADL Long Form scale detected clinically meaningful change in physical function in a large cohort of long-stay nursing home residents with moderate to severe dementia, supporting its use as a research tool in future studies. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 7,001 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
65/100
After 3 months, IG improved gait speed (p = 0.016), implying a statistically significant difference between groups in favour of IG (p = 0.003). 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MoCA and MMSE were more similar for dementia cases, but MoCA distributes MCI cases across a broader score range with less ceiling effect. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 219 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →