30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is limited because it is based on non-specific behavioral and neuroimaging findings. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Severity of cognitive impairment and race both influence plasma p-Tau 217 levels beyond race-associated differences in CSF p-Tau 181 . 4 key findings →
Participants: 113 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among community-dwelling older adults, poorer olfaction predicts incident MCI and is associated with overall and regional Aβ. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 72 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings emphasize that treatments that remove Aβ and completely stop downstream effects on tau and neurodegeneration would only be partially effective in slowing of cognitive decline or reversing cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are common in dementia and in predementia syndromes such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Type 2 diabetes and cognitive dysfunction are highly prevalent disorders worldwide. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MBI may be an earlier marker of neurodegenerative disease than MCI, captured at the stage of subjective cognitive decline or before, raising the possibility that MBI represents a novel target for dementia clinical trials or prevention strategies. 3 key findings →
Participants: 9,931 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Modifiable risk factors for MCI should be sought (at the very latest) in persons who already have MCI, as their optimal treatment may improve these patients' cognitive performance or keep the existing deficits from progressing. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The six-item screener is a brief and reliable instrument for identifying subjects with cognitive impairment and its diagnostic properties are comparable to the full MMSE. 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients with MCI had a predominant memory impairment with relative sparing of other cognitive domains and were intermediate between clinically normal individuals and patients with AD on cognitive and functional ratings. 3 key findings →
Participants: 769 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) is a validated clinical instrument for evaluating psychopathology in dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
It could be of great improvement for the use of the MMSE in dementia screening in Chinese elderly population. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 9,629 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Prior studies have analyzed the burden of cognitive impairment, but often use potentially biased prevalence-based methods or measure only years lived with impairment, without estimating other relevant metrics. 3 key findings →
Participants: 29,304 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Using the OSHPE criteria, we found more participants with MCI than with frailty. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,104 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's Disease is a complex, multifactorial, and comorbid condition. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MCI is a nosological entity proposed as an intermediate state between normal aging and dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CERAD total scores were obtained by summing scores from the individual CERAD subtests (excluding the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]) into a total composite (maximum score = 100). 4 key findings →
Participants: 424 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
135 subjects enrolled in a longitudinal clinicopathologic study were administered the MoCA by a single physician and the MMSE by a trained research assistant. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most widely used instrument for the screening of cognitive impairment worldwide, but its ability to produce valid estimates of dementia in populations of low socioeconomic status and minimal literacy skills has not been adequately established. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,933 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) measures abilities broadly related to executive function (EF), including WAIS-R Digit Symbol Substitution, Digit Span Backwards, Trails A and B, Category Fluency, and Clock Drawing. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four subtypes emerged: (1) dysnomic (n = 153), (2) dysexecutive (n = 102), (3) amnestic (n = 288), and (4) cluster-derived normal (n = 282) who performed within normal limits on cognitive testing. 4 key findings →
Participants: 153 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
SB-C significantly differentiated cognitively unimpaired and impaired groups (P < 0.001), correlated with standard cognitive measures, and showed moderate-to-high area under the curve (0.56-0.82) for classifying biomarker positivity, with strongest results in BioFINDER-Primary Care. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ADNI participants (921 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (7) years and mean (SD) of 17 (3) years of education; 485 (53%) were female, 30 (3%) were Asian, 105 (11%) were Black, and 756 (82%) were White. eVAL participants (279 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (8) years and mean (SD) of 17 (2) years of education; 151 (54%) were female, 17 (6%) were Asian, 12 (4%) were Black, and 245 (88%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 921 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive performance as measured by the MMSE varies within the population by age and education.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
10 of the 886 studies in this tag that have a study page, 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 10. The same 10 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →