27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Dementia is a common medical condition in the ageing population, and cognitive intervention is a non-pharmacologic strategy to improve cognitive functions. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,489 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The global prevalence of MCI among community dwellers is over 15% and is affected by age, gender, education level and region of study sites. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 242,804 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
MCR is associated with an increased risk of falls. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,204 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia and MCI are associated with neuropsychiatric symptoms in clinical samples. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 138 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This meta-analysis provides evidence that CCT improves cognitive function in older people with MCI. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 690 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 70 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive training interventions show to be a potential treatment to ameliorate depression in people with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,551 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CCT proved effective in PD-MCI patients when compared with traditional PCT. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 53 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prevalence and incidence estimates associated with MCI vary greatly both between definitions and within a definition across the 42 publications. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,705 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 5,588 records identified, we included 123 studies involving 35,513 participants from 32 countries. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 123 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Higher MCI prevalence was identified in community-dwelling older adult populations in China compared with some other countries, possibly due to more broadened criteria being adopted for confirming the diagnosis. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 112,632 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients with MCI with APOEε4, abnormal CSF τ level, hippocampal and medial temporal lobe atrophy, entorhinal atrophy, depression, diabetes, hypertension, older age, female gender, lower MMSE score and higher ADAS-cog score, had a high risk for the progression to AD. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 14,821 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MCI prevalence was 6.7% for ages 60-64, 8.4% for 65-69, 10.1% for 70-74, 14.8% for 75-79, and 25.2% for 80-84. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Supported by very low-to-moderate certainty of evidence, physical activity/exercise has a positive effect on several cognitive and noncognitive outcomes in people with MCI and dementia, but RCTs, with low risk of bias/confounding, are still needed to confirm these relationships. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,205 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Relative to a control condition, we found moderate-quality evidence showing a small to moderate effect of CT on our first primary outcome, composite measure of global cognition at end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.62), and high-quality evidence showing a moderate effect on the secondary outcome of verbal semantic fluency (SMD 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.81) at end of treatment, with these gains retained in the medium term (3 to 12 months post treatment). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 653 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CCT is efficacious for overall and key cognitive domains in adults with MS, but efficacy on other outcomes and in progressive subtypes remains unclear. 2 key findings →
Participants: 982 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study found that CT+Active tDCS did not produce greater memory improvement compared to CT+Sham tDCS. 5 key findings →
Participants: 68 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This meta-analysis pooled 14 studies of the Mini-Cog, a 3-minute memory-and-clock-drawing test doctors can give in a routine visit, to see how well it catches dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 7,194 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 5687 unique abstracts, 255 were selected for full-text review, and 57 studies, representing 20 892 patients, met all inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Participants: 892 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Among 80 participants (mean [SD] age, lithium: 72.93 [8.77] years; placebo: 71.22 [6.47] years; 56% female), none of the 6 coprimary outcomes met the prespecified significance threshold. 2 key findings →
Participants: 170 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Inflammatory mechanisms have been implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and might be mediated via the COX-2 enzyme. 3 key findings →
Participants: 725 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →