27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Effective, scalable dementia prevention interventions are needed to address modifiable risk factors given global burden of dementia and challenges in developing disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 6,104 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 300 randomized participants, 277 participants (mean age, 72.9 years; 69.3% female) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (142 in the MLI group and 135 in the control group). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 277 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Between March 1, 2016, and March 12, 2020, 383 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 383 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The interventions were positively perceived, with 72.0% finding the consultation informative and 69.2% considering the app useful. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 188 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 57 articles were included in the review, including 3182 participants. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,182 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Profiles of high risk for future dementia are well understood and are likely to concern mostly those in low-income and middle-income countries and people at greater disadvantage in high-income countries. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,400 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ninety-five participant dyads (PPA mean baseline age: 67.1; 48% female) from four countries were enrolled and randomized. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The enrollment rate was acceptable despite pandemic related challenges (53/60 target recruitment sample). 5 key findings →
Participants: 53 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Well-designed and executed RCTs are needed to confirm our findings on stroke and to have more scientific evidence available for the other neurological diseases. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,335 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants in the experimental group had better overall subjective memory, subjective retrospective memory and global quality of life, with fewer depressive symptoms than those in the control group 3 months following the program. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Over six months, the intervention group showed a stable global cognitive function score (Mini Mental Status Examination), whereas the control group showed a cognitive decline (ANCOVA-interaction: F1, 14 = 5.083, p = .041; controlled for disease duration and education). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial 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
The findings of this cohort study suggest that smartphones could offer a feasible, reliable, valid, and scalable solution for remote evaluations of FTLD and may improve early detection. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 258 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Statistically significant Pearson correlations between the neuropsychological tests and their tablet equivalents were found for all domains with moderate (r > 0.3) or strong (r > 0.7) correlations in 16 of 17 tests (p < 0.05). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between the two versions (paper-based vs. digital) statistically significant correlations were found in all tests, e.g., TMT-A r(48) = 0.63, p < 0.01; TMT-B rs(48) = 0.77, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with multi-domain amnestic mild cognitive impairment (md-aMCI) have an elevated risk of dementia and need interventions that may retain or remediate cognitive function. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study aimed to investigate the relationship between mobile phone use and cognitive impairment using the data of the Prevention and Intervention on Neurodegenerative Disease for Elderly in China (PINDEC) survey. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 21,732 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results corroborate the positive effect of pb-CT and its maintenance primarily on memory in HE and MCI participants that did not seem to be potentiated by RT. 5 key findings →
Participants: 348 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Although computerized cognitive training (CCT) is an effective digital intervention for cognitive impairment, its dose-response relationship is understudied. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,709 Evidence: moderate
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 rapidly increasing worldwide population of older adults, along with the increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia in this population, is a growing health-care problem. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A smartphone application collected 2 modalities of cognitive data, digital voice and screen-based behaviors, from the FHS (Framingham Heart Study) multigenerational Generation 2 (Gen 2) and Generation 3 (Gen 3) cohorts. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 455 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis of narrowly defined CCT across clinical populations with depression. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →