Patients with MCI converted to AD at an annual rate of 17.2%. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 85 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Diabetes is related to a higher risk of amnestic MCI in a population with a high prevalence of this disorder. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,772 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among the 1430 cognitively normal participants included, the mean (SD) age was 79.5 (5.3) years, 49.4% were men, the mean duration of education was 14.3 years, and 25.4% were APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,630 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
69/100
Progression from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease in this cohort was best determined by combining four common, easily administered, cognitive measures. 1 key finding →
Participants: 539 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
When proper normative values are used, only age and education, and not race or ethnicity, are associated with higher frequency of MCI. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher adherence to the MeDi is associated with a trend for reduced risk of developing MCI and with reduced risk of MCI conversion to AD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 482 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
56/100
The proportion of progressors was 11% (8/41), 34% (14/41), 56% (19/34), and 71% (60/85) in A-N-, A+N-, SNAP, and A+N+, respectively; the proportion of APOE ε4 carriers was 29%, 70%, 31%, and 71%, respectively, with the SNAP group featuring a significantly different proportion than both A+N- and A+N+ groups (p ≤ 0.005). 2 key findings →
Participants: 201 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Within a heterogenous group of MCI patients, including many with clinically significant CVD, baseline memory and executive performance significantly predicted likelihood to develop dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals with all types of mild cognitive impairment have an elevated risk of dementia over 3 years, more so in those with an APOE epsilon4 allele. 3 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
MCI diagnosis frequencies are substantively affected by the stringency of the criteria, but the relative rankings of MCI subtype diagnoses are fairly consistent regardless of the stringency of the criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 373 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
For follow-up intervals of 2-4 years, the FCSRT-FR is more predictive than the LM-IR for identifying individuals with memory complaints who will develop incident AD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 86 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals with amnestic pre-MCI showed significantly greater correlations between cerebral hypometabolism and subsequent long-term memory decline than nondecliners in Alzheimer disease-affected brain regions. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Approximately 40% of the subjects were APOE epsilon4 carriers. 2 key findings →
Participants: 494 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cognitively normal subjects with an APOE ε4 allele had a higher likelihood of developing aMCI and the MCI subtype was associated with the dementia subtype. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is a substantial body of literature dealing with predictors of dementia in patients with MCI. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
INTRODUCTIONMultimodal biomarkers have transformed Alzheimers disease research, but the incremental contribution of each modality to predicting progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains unclear. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,430 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundAccurate prediction of progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimers disease (AD) is important for prognosis, patient management, and clinical trial enrollment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,430 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 →