The final algorithm demonstrated an AUROC of 0.88, sensitivity of 77.7%, and a specificity of 79.9% on excluded test data. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
51/100
This study found that a wearable device can be used to differentiate dementia disease subtypes. 3 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 80 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease is the leading cause of dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
The most impacting factors on digital divide in our population are the social support networks and the experience with the technology: the presence of a digital native caregiver. 2 key findings →
Participants: 34 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The conventional Clock Drawing Test (cCDT) is a rapid and inexpensive screening tool for detection of moderate and severe dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches pose a great opportunity for individualized, pre-symptomatic disease diagnosis which plays a key role in the context of personalized, predictive, and finally preventive medicine (PPPM). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The projected burden of dementia by Alzheimer's disease (AD) represents a looming healthcare crisis as the population of most countries grows older. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia and the fifth-leading cause of death among people over the age of 65. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We still do not have an effective treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) despite it being the most common cause of dementia and impaired cognitive function. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neurological disorders are among the leading causes of both physical and cognitive disabilities worldwide, affecting approximately 15% of the global population. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive impairment and dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), pose a global health crisis, necessitating non-invasive biomarkers for early detection. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Advancing the understanding and management of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias requires integrating and analyzing diverse data modalities. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Actigraphy accurately identifies different dementia etiologies and could serve as a supplement to diagnostic investigations in patients with suspected AD for differential diagnostic purposes. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Machine learning (ML) on structural MRI data shows high potential for classifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression, but the specific contribution of brain regions, demographics, and proteinopathy remains unclear. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 568 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Critical appraisal will not be undertaken, as it is optional in scoping reviews and is not aligned with the primary mapping objectives of this review. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the 18,013 participants with complete data for analysis, 516 (2.86%) exhibited cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27,768 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Seven studies were included from 1,800 screened. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the most noteworthy developments in ophthalmology over the last decade has been the emergence of quantifiable high-resolution imaging modalities, which are typically non-invasive, rapid and widely available. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive impairment is highly prevalent among individuals with late-life depression (LLD) and tends to persist even after successful treatment. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The COACH system shows promise as a tool to help support older adults with moderate-levels of dementia and their caregivers. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The high failure rate of clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementia (ADRD) is due to a lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of disease, and this deficit may be addressed by applying artificial intelligence (AI) to "big data" to rapidly and effectively expand therapeutic development efforts. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Gait is emerging as a potential diagnostic tool for cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The dCDT is able to operationally define graphomotor output that cannot be measured using traditional paper and pencil test administration in older health controls and participants with dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 175 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
PWAbS revealed elevated gross autoantibody levels in AD and DLB patients compared to CNIs. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 35 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
50/100
Our findings indicate that using location-based trajectory metrics with clinical measures significantly improves the predictability of motor agitation beyond individual baselines. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study 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 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.
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 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 →