Cognitive impairment is a frequent feature of COPD. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Cross-sectional observational study. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Living with another adult and higher MMSE scores were significantly associated with later access to home help services (p < 0.001) and care facilities (p < 0.001). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,592 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Anosognosia, the lack of awareness of memory decline, and Neuropsychiatric Symptoms (NPS) are prevalent and debilitating symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 53 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This preliminary report describes the development, reliability, and validity testing of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) designed specifically for rating depression in the elderly. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
54/100
BackgroundCognitive impairment significantly impacts the quality of life in patients with neurodegenerative disorders, including Huntington's disease (HD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and Alzheimer's disease (AD).ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the utility of MemTrax, a contemporary digital continuous recognition task platform originally developed for AD, as an effective tool for revealing cognitive and clinical motor impairments in HD and PD populations as aligned with respective disease staging. 2 key findings →
Participants: 135 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In response to correspondence from Cognivue, Inc. regarding our publication (Jannati et al., 2025), we clarify that our analysis employed a rigorous paired-sample design using the same 930 participants from the Bio-Hermes-001 study for both the Digital Clock and Recall® (DCR) and Cognivue Clarity® assessments. 3 key findings →
Participants: 930 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A high Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.77 (CI = 0.63-0.86) was observed between the two scores. 5 key findings →
Participants: 55 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery (SNSB) is one of the standardized neuropsychological test batteries widely used in Korea. 4 key findings →
Participants: 43 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
Low levels of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) beta-amyloid 1-42 (Abeta42) and high total tau (T-tau) are diagnostic for manifest Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Outpatient departments in three hospitals, including a memory clinic. 4 key findings →
Participants: 139 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The independent and combined effects of physical and cognitive domains of frailty in predicting the development of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia are not firmly established. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A rapid increase in the number of patients with dementia has emerged as a global health challenge. 4 key findings →
Participants: 80 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant hazard ratios (HRs) for dementia incidence were found using the MMSE cutoff between 23 and 24 point (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.13-3.27) and the J-Cog cutoff between 43 and 44 points (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.50-3.93). 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The BHA had excellent combined sensitivity and specificity to detect dementia and MCI, including MCI due to diverse etiologies. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 347 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean age of the study population was 78 ± 6.6 years and 123 (76.9%) were women. 4 key findings →
Participants: 160 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
53/100
AD and non-AD participants were older (mean ± standard deviation (SD): 72.61 ± 6.79 vs 69.91 ± 4.86 years old, p = 0.011) and had a lower MMSE score (Mean difference estimate ± standard error: 1.74 ± 0.14, p < 0.001) than Controls; post-COVID-19 patients were younger than Controls (mean ± SD: 45.07 ± 11.36 years old, p < 0.001). 4 key findings →
Participants: 64 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Screening in primary care using the DCR is feasible, and shows criterion and convergent validity with a "gold standard" screening tool for detecting cognitive impairment-the MOCA. 2 key findings →
Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Annual cognitive screening in older adults is essential for early detection of cognitive impairment, yet primary care settings face time constraints that present barriers to routine screening. 1 key finding →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results suggest that the dual task ball balancing test could be used as a digital cognitive assessment of cognitive reserve. 5 key findings →
Participants: 210 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The final multivariable model showed good accuracy in identifying cognitively impaired individuals (c = 0·77). 4 key findings →
Participants: 912 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundThe Digits-in-Noise (DIN) test is recognized as a promising hearing screening tool due to its feasibility and reliability, particularly in noisy environments. 2 key findings →
Participants: 93 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A high-frequency trip's driving telemetry, combined with age and APOE ε4 status, discriminates preclinical AD, outperforming multisensory measures. 1 key finding →
Participants: 254 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The combination of MemTrax and BBMs provides an accurate, convenient, non-invasive, cost-effective and scalable way to estimate Aβ load, which provides an opportunity for mass screening and timely and accurate diagnosis of AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 349 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundLanguage deficits often occur early in the neurodegenerative process, yet traditional methods frequently fail to detect subtle changes. 3 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 336 Evidence: low
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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