Thirty-three randomized controlled trials were identified evaluating 15,971 participants (9,103 (57%) female). 5 key findings →
Participants: 15,971 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.
Exercise interventions were performed 3.4 ± 1.4 days per week at moderate intensity (3.7 ± 0.6 metabolic equivalents) for 45.2 ± 17.0 minutes per session for 18.6 ± 10.0 weeks and consisted primarily of aerobic exercise (65%). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,145 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
More than 25% of the U.S. population aged ≥ 65 years has diabetes mellitus (hereafter referred to as diabetes),1 and the aging of the overall population is a significant driver of the diabetes epidemic. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The enrollment rate was acceptable despite pandemic related challenges (53/60 target recruitment sample). 5 key findings →
Participants: 53 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Newer GLDs were associated with a decreased risk of all-cause dementia in people with T2D. Because of the observational nature and significant heterogeneity between studies, the results should be interpreted with caution. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 819,511 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Contemporary healthcare policies are designed to shape the conditions that can help delay the institutionalization of patients with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 9,043 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
76/100
Systematic cognitive training had no effect on global cognition or HRQoL in community-living persons with mild to moderate dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 147 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a large dementia prevention trial with 6-year follow-up, dropout was associated with older age, poorer cognitive function, symptoms of depression, and disability at baseline. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,994 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium (or acute confusional state) affects 35% to 65% of patients after hip-fracture repair, and has been independently associated with poor functional recovery. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Outcomes from this trial support the conduct of a larger and longer trial with this participant group. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 57 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The evidence base on tools for detection of delirium superimposed on dementia is limited, although some existing tools show promise. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,569 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding referral criteria for palliative care in patients with dementia and the need to identify timely triggers to standardize referral. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 43 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Randomized control intervention. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study included 524,975 older adults with dementia who were incident users of ChEIs (donepezil 80.72%, rivastigmine 16.41%, galantamine 2.87%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 524,975 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
73/100
During the study period, 82,118 patients with dementia (mean (SD) age, 83.04 (10.04), 51,170 (62.21%) female) underwent an acute hospitalization, of which 41,227 (50.27%) received care in hospitals that implemented a palliative care program. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 82,118 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ACP billing codes from 6 months before to 6 months after admission for inpatient surgery. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 289,428 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older adults with CVD other than stroke had a higher risk of dementia and AD than did those without CVD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,602 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Treatment of acutely sick, frail, older patients in a GEMU substantially reduced mortality. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 127 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
72/100
Older adults with hearing loss are at greater risk of dementia than those with normal hearing. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,865 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
HI and VI at baseline were reported by 30.3% and 16.6% of individuals, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,497 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
70/100
Tai Chi shows potential to enhance cognitive function in older adults, particularly in the realm of executive functioning and in individuals without significant impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 2,553 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
70/100
Use of donepezil by AD patients resulted in significant delays in NHP. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,115 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Light treatment alone did not improve nighttime sleep, daytime wake, or rest-activity rhythm. 4 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: high
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