27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Our results corroborate the positive effect of pb-CT and its maintenance primarily on memory in HE and MCI participants that did not seem to be potentiated by RT. 5 key findings →
Participants: 348 Evidence: high
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
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has gained much interest in recent years for its ability to explain the complex decision-making process of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Across the cohorts, each 10-year increase in BAI was associated with a 39% higher risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.21-1.59]; P Conclusions and relevance In this IPD meta-analysis, a higher sleep EEG-based BAI was associated with a higher risk of incident dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 7,105 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Differential diagnosis of dementia remains a challenge in neurology due to symptom overlap across etiologies, yet it is crucial for formulating early, personalized management strategies. 1 key finding →
Participants: 51,269 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The literature has several methodological limitations including lack of sufficient algorithm development descriptions and standard definitions. 1 key finding →
Participants: 255 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which cognitive training via interactive computerised technology was compared with an active or inactive control intervention. 5 key findings →
Participants: 660 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of cognitive training, specifically computerized cognitive training (CCT) and virtual reality cognitive training (VRCT), programs for individuals living with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia and therefore at high risk of cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
However, the results of recent studies using semi-immersive virtual reality (VR)-assisted cognitive training are inconsistent. 5 key findings →
Participants: 23 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Measuring usability and UX in cognitive intervention technologies for older adults with MCI or dementia provides an integrated view that can contribute to their development according to the needs and characteristics of the target population. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
However, to replace existing nonpharmaceutical treatment training protocols, VR platforms need significant improvement if they are to appeal to older people with symptoms of cognitive decline and meet their specific needs. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ICT-based cognitive intervention had a positive effect on cognitive function, depression, and quality of life in older adults with MCI or mild dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A deep learning algorithm based on patient demographic information and longitudinal clinical notes appeared to show promising results in predicting mortality among patients with dementia in different time frames. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both verbal and visual computerized memory tests showed comparable diagnostic performance to the paper-and-pencil tests. 1 key finding →
Participants: 18,450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It has been suggested that patients undergoing treatment with recombinant interleukin-2 (rIL-2) may develop cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although computerized cognitive training (CCT) is an effective digital intervention for cognitive impairment, its dose-response relationship is understudied. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,709 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients in the experimental group showed a significant improvement in various neuropsychological domains due to the training, and these effects decreased after 12 months. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The rapidly increasing worldwide population of older adults, along with the increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia in this population, is a growing health-care problem. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results revealed machine learning with novel biomarkers and multiple variables may increase the sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A smartphone application collected 2 modalities of cognitive data, digital voice and screen-based behaviors, from the FHS (Framingham Heart Study) multigenerational Generation 2 (Gen 2) and Generation 3 (Gen 3) cohorts. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 455 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We performed a systematic review of studies focusing on the automatic prediction of the progression of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, and a quantitative analysis of the methodological choices impacting performance. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 172 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The slow progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses a challenge for the quantification of early disease-driven cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 152 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The CDR+NACC FTLD global score interacted with time on battery percentage such that participants with prodromal or symptomatic FTLD demonstrated less change in battery percentage throughout the day (a proxy for less smartphone use) than clinically normal participants (P<.001 in both cases). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review included 24 studies involving 2979 participants (1717 with dysphagia and 1262 controls). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Technology-based cognitive training and rehabilitation interventions show promise, but the findings were inconsistent due to the variations in study design. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
9 of the 1,102 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 9. The same 9 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →