Decades of research has established a shift from an "eveningness" preference to a "morningness" preference with increasing age. 4 key findings →
Participants: 169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Digital assessments are effective at identifying at-risk individuals, supporting their utility as low-burden tools for early AD detection and monitoring. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This work demonstrates a mobile version of VisMET capable of estimating the presence of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Participants: 250 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
33 Chinese- and 117 English-speaking older adults who received a diagnosis of normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment at consensus were included in the data analysis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Computerized cognitive assessment tools may facilitate early identification of dementia in the primary care setting. 1 key finding →
Participants: 259 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Eighty-three apps were reviewed (stroke, N=8; migraine, N=25; Alzheimer's disease and dementia, N=8; depression, N=7; anxiety, N=14; apps targeting depression and anxiety, N=21). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Mobile-health applications can be used to deliver timely and personalized health information to family and friends of chronically ill adults living in the community. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
This case series elucidates pathological signs for diagnosis in two patients with Dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mindstreams tests are effective in detecting MCI, providing a comprehensive profile of cognitive function. 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a pressing need to capture and track subtle cognitive change at the preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD) rapidly, cost-effectively, and with high sensitivity. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The validity of a new computerised battery called CogState was determined in 60 individuals with advanced human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) infection from which eleven were assessed as AIDS dementia complex (ADC) stage 1 or 2. 1 key finding →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
COVID-19 has caused obstacles in continuing normal life almost everywhere in the world by causing the implementation of social distancing and eventually imposing the lockdown. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The participants had little difficulty self-administering the CCS, which is an oft-cited barrier to computerised testing in this population. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
46/100
Smartphones have potential as cognitive aids for adults with cognitive impairments. 1 key finding →
Participants: 53 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 219 completing participants (mean age 73.5 years), the mean SUS score was 82.0 (95% CI: 80.3-83.8), with 84% exceeding the usability threshold (SUS score > 68). 5 key findings →
Participants: 241 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
45/100
Careful design and user-testing should be made a priority in the development of computerized assessment interfaces, as well as reevaluating the cognitive assessment process to minimize patient anxiety and discomfort. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine participants, at two-time points. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For the reproducibility, identical P-values and slope estimates were found with both digital biomarkers and neuropsychological test measures between the previous and current studies. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean DDAF score was 40.56 ± 21.18 among digital natives (18-29 years), 34.93 ± 21.88 among the digital transition generation (30-44 years), and 25.17 ± 18.59 among digital immigrants (45-70 years) (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We present a model for digital neural impairment screening and self-assessment, which can evaluate cognitive and motor deficits for patients with symptoms of central nervous system (CNS) disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), or dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The health issues associated with aging not only have a significant impact on the overall well-being of older individuals but also puts a lot of pressure of the healthcare system (3). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive and depressive symptoms co-occur, complicating detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 72 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The NeuroTrax Mindstreams computerized cognitive assessment system was designed for widespread clinical and research use in detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The machine learning model predicted MMSE scores with a root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of 2.43 in the BH test set. 4 key findings →
Participants: 945 Evidence: moderate
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 →