In this study, quantitative results were inconclusive owing to small sample size. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 25 Evidence: high
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.
Although mixed, the results indicate a positive response for the use of internet-based interventions by caregivers. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Baseline assessments were conducted on 128 participants. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 125 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite the promise of a multitude of sensors and devices that can be applied, there are no agreed-upon standards for digital biomarkers, nor are there comprehensive evidence-based results for which digital biomarkers may be demonstrated to be most effective. 3 key findings →
Participants: 279 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After removal of duplicates, our initial search returned 3955 records. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite the increasing approval of antiamyloid antibodies for Alzheimer disease (AD), their clinical relevance and risk-benefit profile remain uncertain. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,236 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
61/100
This study included 54 articles, comprising 14,446 participants from 10 countries. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 54 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics and in outcome variables (HHI, GSES, and SF-12v2 mental component score and physical component score) between users and nonusers. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 101 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of the included studies were summarized using a narrative synthesis or meta-analysis, as appropriate. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This simple and feasible cognitive impairment prediction model could identify community-dwelling elderly people at the greatest 3-year risk for cognitive impairment, which could help community nurses in the early identification of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intervention revealed no substantial between-group differences in caregiver burden (β=-3.80, 95% CI -11.25 to 3.65, P=.32), quality of life (β=-1.55, 95% CI -6.59 to 3.49, P=.55), or social support (β=0.85, 95% CI -2.86 to 4.56, P=.65). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, the effect sizes were small. 1 key finding →
Participants: 34 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 7170 prescreened papers, 12 met the inclusion criteria. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Unsupervised machine learning identifies high likelihood of dementia in population-based surveys, even without cognitive and behavioral measures and without the need of clinical diagnosis of dementia in a subsample of the population. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18,165 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Adjusted for demographic and health behavior as well as health condition risk factors, desktop and cellphone ownership were independently associated with subsequent decreased cognitive decline over the four-year period. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The moderate to high isolation group demonstrated a significantly elevated risk of dementia compared with the low isolation group. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,189 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From an ethical perspective, important benefits of embodied AI applications in mental health include new modes of treatment, opportunities to engage hard-to-reach populations, better patient response, and freeing up time for physicians. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We demonstrated that it was both feasible and acceptable to set up these sensors in the community and unobtrusively collect data. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 59 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant hazard ratios (HRs) for dementia incidence were found using the MMSE cutoff between 23 and 24 point (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.13-3.27) and the J-Cog cutoff between 43 and 44 points (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.50-3.93). 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 6378 papers published between 2014 and 2023 were analyzed. 5 key findings →
Participants: 6,378 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the within-language condition, combined speech timing and lexico-semantic features yielded maximal classification (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]=0.88), outperforming single-feature models (AUC=0.79 for timing features; AUC=0.80 for lexico-semantic features). 5 key findings →
Participants: 211 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were 75 subjects in the pilot. The patients were aged 65 (56-73.5) years, and 39% (29/75) resided in rural areas. 5 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ACoE's overall cognitive assessments were significantly reliable (ICC [intraclass correlation coefficient]=0.89; P<.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 35 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In total, 3028 posts were retrieved, including 1552 from older adult-related subreddits and 1476 from Alzheimer disease-related subreddits; 18 key topics were identified, with the most frequent topics being expressing feelings (2178/3028, 71.93%) and seeking advice and support (1982/3028, 65.46%). 5 key findings →
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.
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 →