These results provide further support for behavioral interventions for persons with MCI. 4 key findings →
Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
As the first NMA comparing different interventions for AD and MCI, our study suggests that PE and CCT might have a significant improvement in cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms respectively. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,747 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 4-week USMART modestly improved information retrieval in older people with MCI, and was well accepted with minimal technical support. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) increases dementia risk with no pharmacologic treatment available. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We evaluated the performance of CSF biomarkers for predicting risk of clinical decline and conversion to dementia in non-demented patients with cognitive symptoms. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 619 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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 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
In this single-center observational study, we included all individuals who visited the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and had a clinical diagnosis of subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or probable AD dementia and were A+. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 520 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The SmartPrompt is a smartphone-based reminder application informed by a neuropsychological model of functional disability. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The BHA-CS was accurate at detecting cognitive impairment and exhibited excellent long-term stability. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 340 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study aimed to investigate the association between a virtual reality (VR) intervention program and cognitive, brain and physical functions in high-risk older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 68 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Epidemiologic evidence suggests that cognitive and physical activities are associated with better cognition in late life. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ABSTRACTObjective:To compare the accuracy of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in tracking mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There are 9.9 million new cases of dementia in the world every year. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is regarded as a prodrome to dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
63/100
From a longitudinal study of normal (Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] = 0; n = 77) and mildly impaired (CDR = 0.5; n = 167) participants with 5 or more annual clinical assessments, baseline level of cognitive impairment in daily life was graded using CDR sum of boxes (CDR-SB) and level of cognitive performance impairment was graded using neuropsychological test scores. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Age-related cognitive impairment and dementia are an increasing societal burden. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, there are barriers to their use associated with sociodemographic factors and negative attitudes, as well as inadequate knowledge about technologies. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,172 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results indicate that declines in connected speech may be related to preclinical AD. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) exhibit decreased retinal blood flow and vessel density (VD). 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Characterizing subtle cognitive changes in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) is difficult using traditional neuropsychological assessments. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
58/100
Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC) at Washington University (WU). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 118 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
The authors used mixed-effects growth models to examine longitudinal change in neuropsychological performance over a 4-year period among 197 individuals who were either normal or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In one of the largest brain MRI studies to date, we used tensor-based morphometry (TBM) to create 3D maps of structural atrophy in 676 subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and healthy elderly controls, scanned as part of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →
Participants: 676 Evidence: low
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 27,380 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.
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 27,380 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 →