27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Plasma phosphorylated tau181 (P-tau181) might be increased in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but its usefulness for differential diagnosis and prognosis is unclear. 2 key findings →
Participants: 589 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Statistically significant Pearson correlations between the neuropsychological tests and their tablet equivalents were found for all domains with moderate (r > 0.3) or strong (r > 0.7) correlations in 16 of 17 tests (p < 0.05). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between the two versions (paper-based vs. digital) statistically significant correlations were found in all tests, e.g., TMT-A r(48) = 0.63, p < 0.01; TMT-B rs(48) = 0.77, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recently approved anti-amyloid immunotherapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) require evidence of amyloid-β pathology from positron emission tomography (PET) or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) before initiating treatment. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,896 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) aims to validate biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pooled evidence from available trials reporting both reduction in amyloid levels and change in cognition suggests that amyloid reduction strategies do not substantially improve cognition. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Topic Visual impairment (VI) and cognitive impairment (CIM) are prevalent age-related conditions that impose substantial burden on the society. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 47 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This meta-analysis pooled 14 studies of the Mini-Cog, a 3-minute memory-and-clock-drawing test doctors can give in a routine visit, to see how well it catches dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 7,194 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The panel cautions users of this guideline that there is significant variability in diagnostic test accuracy and many commercially available BBM tests do not meet these thresholds, especially using a single cutoff. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results from utilization of the UDS highlight the possibility for numerous research institutions to successfully collaborate, produce, and use standardized data collection instruments for over a decade. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,820 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study found no evidence of a neuroprotective effect of physical activity. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 329 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 1018 study patients enrolled, 508 were randomly assigned to rivastigmine and 510 to placebo; 17.3% of patients on rivastigmine and 21.4% on placebo progressed to AD (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.64-1.12]; p=0.225). 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Adding MDLC to p-tau217 significantly explained longitudinal cognitive trajectory beyond p-tau217 alone. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 183 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this prospective cohort study, we included adults aged 40 years or older with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia, based on cognitive test results and clinical assessments, consecutively recruited at two memory clinics in Sweden, as part of the Swedish BioFINDER-2 study. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 572 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean age was 74.2 years (SD, 8.3 years), 48% were women, 23% had subjective cognitive decline, 44% had mild cognitive impairment, and 33% had dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 307 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found that the mass spectrometry-based p-tau217 (p-tau217WashU) exhibited significantly better performance than all other plasma p-tau biomarkers when detecting abnormal Aβ status [area under curve (AUC) = 0.947; Pdiff 0.09), but higher compared with AUC of p-tau231UGOT, p-tau181Lilly, p-tau181UGOT, p-tau181Fuji and p-tau181Splex (AUCrange 0.642-0.813; Pdiff ≤ 0.029). 5 key findings →
Participants: 135 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants allocated to CR received 10 weekly sessions over 3 months and four maintenance sessions over 6 months. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 475 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Whilst cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and positron emission tomography (PET) biomarkers for amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau pathologies are accurate for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), their broad implementation in clinical and trial settings are restricted by high cost and limited accessibility. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A 26-wk group-based exercise program combined with dual-task training improved GCF in community-dwelling older adults without dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 44 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This fully-automated and available blood-based biomarker assay therefore may be useful for early detection, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of AD. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 463 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Deep learning, a state-of-the-art machine learning approach, has shown outstanding performance over traditional machine learning in identifying intricate structures in complex high-dimensional data, especially in the domain of computer vision. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma p-tau217 was the highest-performing biomarker for identifying biologically defined Alzheimer's disease, with pooled sensitivity of 88·1% (95% CI 86·7-89·5, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity of 88·7% (87·4-89·9, moderate certainty of evidence), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 91·1% (88·9-92·4, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio of 50·7 (40·6-63·4). p-tau181 pooled sensitivity was 80·5% (78·4-82·4, low certainty of evidence), specificity was 76·4% (74·1-78·6, low certainty of evidence), AUROC was 81·5% (80·2-82·9, low certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 13·4 (11·4-16·7). p-tau205 pooled sensitivity was 76·6% (70·7-81·6, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 86·0% (78·6-91·2, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 85·1% (80·7-89·6, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 20·2 (10·5-38·7). p-tau212 pooled sensitivity was 84·5% (75·5-90·6, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 87·3% (79·5-92·5, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 90·3% (86·6-94·1, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 41·2 (22·0-77·3). p-tau231 pooled sensitivity was 75·2% (71·3-78·8, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 75·3% (71·2-78·9, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 80·2 (77·6-82·7, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 9·3 (7·0-12·2). 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
10 of the 1,775 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →