The analytical sample size of the study was 2,068,937, including 9.9% Black, 82.7% White, and 7.4% Hispanic individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
At the beginning of June 2020, there were nearly 7 million reported cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide and over 400,000 deaths in people with COVID-19. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia poses a significant global health challenge for both clinicians and patients, impacting millions of individuals worldwide, yet its early diagnosis remains underexplored. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 415 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Technology-based interventions have the potential to support informal caregivers of PWD. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The identification of biological and pathophysiological processes implicated in different forms of dementia is itself dependent on reliable descriptions of cognitive performance and capacities. 2 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregivers in the combined family therapy and technology intervention experienced a significant reduction in depressive symptoms at 6 months. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Teleneuropsychology is proving to be an excellent resource for clarifying cognitive and psychiatric diagnoses, and integrating individual strengths, weaknesses, and preferences into treatment and care plans used by other health care providers, patients, and caregivers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
VTM is emerging as an effective way to provide consultation and care to rural residents who may not have access to specialty services and can be integrated into current clinical settings. 3 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The study findings demonstrate high user satisfaction with telehealth in a rural memory clinic and the sound psychometric properties of the TeSS in this population. 2 key findings →
Participants: 223 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Incorporating RHR into the CAIDE model significantly improved predictive accuracy across Black African, Asian, White, and Native Hawaiian populations (mean AUC range: 0.80-0.91). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The capability of xEEGNet to filter specific EEG bands, learns band specific topographies and use the right EEG spectral bands for disease classification demonstrates its interpretability. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Addressing disparities related to Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD) is a priority for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Most of the 5.4 million people affected by Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia (AD) are noninstitutionalized, receiving care by unpaid family caregivers and medically managed by a primary care provider (PCP). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Foundation models (FMs) are entering Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), yet bedside impact remains limited. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
32/100
Key barriers included limited digital literacy, resistance to technology and privacy concerns, as well as competing organisational priorities, and inadequate technological infrastructure. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neurodegenerative conditions increasingly adopt digital and assistive technologies in community and home-based settings to support independence, symptom management and quality of life. 5 key findings →
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
- 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.
1,037 records (3.5% 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 →