Home-based CCT Adaptive WM training appears more effective than Non-Adaptive training in older adults from different cultural backgrounds. 4 key findings →
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.
Cognitive rehabilitation for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer's disease is readily available to the geriatric population. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Data collection commenced in November 2023 and finished in July 2024, with the enrollment of 49 older adults with MCI (n=40, 81.6%, assigned to the experimental group [EG] and n=9, 18.4%, to the control group [CG]) conducted from October 2023 to April 2024. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
=0.03), indicating improved executive function. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant improvement in mental flexibility and planning abilities was observed in both groups (as measured by the Zoo planning test), but no other neuropsychological tests showed improvement. 5 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older adults with mild dementia demonstrated worse baseline cognitive performance than participants without dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 72 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggest that HB-CCT via Neurotablet can effectively enhance specific cognitive abilities in PD, supporting the role of digital, home-based interventions as feasible strategies to mitigate cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
COG-T CHD is the first clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in patients with coronary heart disease, filling an important gap in the treatment evidence for cognitive digital therapy. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Immersive VR was acceptable and enjoyable for older adults in both groups. 4 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results will provide new evidence of the efficacy of an innovative multi-component intervention integrating IVR and telemedicine in SCD individuals. 2 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Assistive technology (AT) involvement in therapeutic treatment has provided simple and efficient healthcare solutions to people. 5 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive decline because of aging and neurodegeneration has become increasingly prevalent. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most prevalent neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis are heterogeneous in their clinical profiles and underlying pathophysiology, although they typically share the presence of cognitive impairment that worsens significantly during the course of the disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A digitally delivered intervention with minimal support appears acceptable and potentially engaging to older adults with higher and lower levels of cognitive performance. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Personalized Multi-Domain Digital Platform for Dementia Prevention (PM(DP)*2) is a conceptualized evidence-based initiative designed to reduce dementia burden through tailored interventions. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The project is expected to generate evidence on the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of multidomain interventions implemented across diverse real-world settings, including community, hospital, and long-term care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this paper, we conduct a literature survey on various virtual reality (VR) treatments in psychiatry. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia directly influences the quality of life of a person suffering from this chronic illness. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants included 10 physiatrists, 6 OTs, and 11 patients with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For the interim analysis as of October 2024, the results of the MCI study arm are reported (n=42). 5 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Virtual Reality (VR) has emerged as a promising tool in many domains of therapy and rehabilitation, and has recently attracted the attention of researchers and clinicians working with elderly people with MCI, Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prevalence of age-related cognitive decline will increase due to graying of the global population. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prior research suggests that both exergaming and virtual reality (VR)-based training programs could improve executive functions in older adults. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Human evolution has regularly intersected with technology. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adequate adherence is a necessary condition for success with any intervention, including for computerized cognitive training designed to mitigate age-related cognitive decline. 4 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 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 →