30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 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
This study indicates that the cognitive and behavioral efficacies of MeMo, a Web-based training app, can be observed only with regular use of the app. 4 key findings →
Participants: 46 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
RS-tDCS is a safe and feasible rehabilitation modality for poststroke cognitive dysfunction. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive training interventions show to be a potential treatment to ameliorate depression in people with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,551 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CCT proved effective in PD-MCI patients when compared with traditional PCT. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 53 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 6321 participants (mean [SE] age, 56.1 [0.18] years at visit 1; n = 4077 women [57.8%]) were included. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,077 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging is characterized by cognitive decline affecting daily functioning. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Combined multi-domain interventions may contribute to preventing or delaying disease progression. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline age, sex, illiteracy, years of education, and scores on the K-MMSE, CDR, SNSB-II, and K-MBI. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cohort studies suggest that the Mediterranean diet is associated with better global cognition in older adults, slower cognitive decline and lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 249,511 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 2-year multidomain FINGER intervention may modulate white matter microstructural alterations. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 34 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is emerging evidence linking fruit and vegetable consumption and cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Aerobic exercise in early AD is associated with benefits in functional ability. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 68 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Question Does physical exercise training improve physical function and quality of life in people with cognitive impairment and dementia? 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,988 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pilot study was unable to demonstrate a benefit for donepezil in preventing or treating delirium in a relatively young and cognitively-intact group of elderly patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. 2 key findings →
Participants: 80 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the primary analysis, limiting the level of sedation provided no significant benefit in reducing incident delirium. 5 key findings →
Participants: 73 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The experimental paradigm was feasible and acceptable. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 95 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium in the elderly appears to have a poor prognosis. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 573 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our evaluation study suggests that prophylactic treatment with low dose haloperidol in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium probably has beneficial effects. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 299 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Main results Two RCTs and one controlled before-and-after study were included (735 participants). 3 key findings →
Participants: 735 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four tools demonstrated some promise, but no single tool was consistent across all psychometric properties assessed. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 35 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Studies implementing research methods (30 studies) demonstrated the role of family members as both proxy decision-makers and supporting decision-making for the person with impaired capacity. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Knowledge of CPR, MV, TF, and self-efficacy to make EOL treatment decisions increased significantly more in the ACT-Plan group at weeks 4 and 20. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 173 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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