Both total CogEvo and MMSE scores significantly decreased with age. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 209 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We applied our procedure to real-world data which include longitudinal in-home monitored walking speed. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our analysis yielded three major a marked acceleration in research activity since 2020, a convergence of clinical needs with technological advancements, and the inherently interdisciplinary nature of this field. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were 719 respondents (276 people with dementia, 443 carers). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 276 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, individuals improved on all C3 measures over 12 months (β = 0.23, 95% CI [0.21-0.25], p < 0.001), but improvement over the first 3 months was greatest (β = 0.68, 95% CI [0.59-0.77], p < 0.001), suggesting stronger PE over initial repeated exposures. 4 key findings →
Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Remote monitoring of cognition holds the promise to facilitate case-finding in clinical care and the individual detection of cognitive impairment in clinical and research settings. 1 key finding →
Participants: 97 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
57/100
A MPT model of the MST can detect individuals with AD prior to cognitive decline, making it a potentially useful tool for screening and monitoring older adults during the asymptomatic phase of AD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 200 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
57/100
We evaluated a digital cognitive assessment platform, Philips IntelliSpace Cognition, in a case-control study of patients diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively normal (CN) older adults. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The following four themes emerged from participants' feedback: (1) healthy lifestyle and behavioral changes, (2) a sense of self-awareness through introspection, (3) value in coach support, and (4) a desire for a change in program format (eg, frequency). 5 key findings →
Participants: 74 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BRANCH reliably captures meaningful cognitive information remotely, suggesting promise as a digital cognitive marker sensitive early in the AD trajectory. 2 key findings →
Participants: 234 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
55/100
The BHA has excellent performance characteristics in detecting cognitive impairment including dementia and MCI in a Hispanic population in Cuba and outperformed the MoCA. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 146 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings indicate that AD patients present impairments in some key functional abilities, such as gait, turning and sitting, sit to stand, and reaction time, both in mild and moderate AD. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 22 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggest that the ALLFTD-mApp study protocol is feasible and acceptable for remote FTD research. 3 key findings →
Participants: 101 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The best predictor of CDR at 36 months was M, a DCB reflecting recall ability (area under the curve = 0.84), outperforming traditional scores. 5 key findings →
Participants: 330 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Average compliance by time of day ranged from 90.2% for morning sessions, to 77.9% for afternoon sessions, and 84.4% for evening sessions. 5 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Age- and sex-specific reference values were generated for three DANA tasks. 5 key findings →
Participants: 932 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
55/100
Our results demonstrated that dual-task could significantly improve the ability to predict cognitive impairment based on gait parameters such as gait speed (GS) and stride length (SL). 5 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The search for early biomarkers of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been central to the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and dementia research community in recent years. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Digital cognitive testing using online platforms has emerged as a potentially transformative tool in clinical neuroscience. 3 key findings →
Participants: 325 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although a small-scale study (n = 60), it suggests that older adults operate in larger geographic spaces than in the areas where they reside. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 60 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
54/100
BackgroundCognitive impairment significantly impacts the quality of life in patients with neurodegenerative disorders, including Huntington's disease (HD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and Alzheimer's disease (AD).ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the utility of MemTrax, a contemporary digital continuous recognition task platform originally developed for AD, as an effective tool for revealing cognitive and clinical motor impairments in HD and PD populations as aligned with respective disease staging. 2 key findings →
Participants: 135 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In response to correspondence from Cognivue, Inc. regarding our publication (Jannati et al., 2025), we clarify that our analysis employed a rigorous paired-sample design using the same 930 participants from the Bio-Hermes-001 study for both the Digital Clock and Recall® (DCR) and Cognivue Clarity® assessments. 3 key findings →
Participants: 930 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A high Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.77 (CI = 0.63-0.86) was observed between the two scores. 5 key findings →
Participants: 55 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CVRF prevalence was 62.8% (n=150) for high cholesterol, 45.2% (n=108) for hypertension, 10.9% (n=26) for atrial fibrillation, and 7.5% (n=18) for diabetes. 5 key findings →
Participants: 102 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The SLS is a valid and reliable self-administered memory test that shows promise for remote assessment of aging and neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →
Participants: 96 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
8 of the 238 studies in this tag, 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 8. The same 8 appear here every time.
- Computerised cognitive testing of individuals with Down's syndrome and Alzheimer's disease
- Computerized Structured Cognitive Training in Patients Affected by Early-Stage Alzheimer's Disease is Feasible and Effective: A Randomized Controlled Study
- Montreal cognitive assessment: validation study for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease
- A Smartphone Application for Automated Decision Support in Cognitive Task Based Evaluation of Central Nervous System Motor Disorders
- Remote monitoring technologies in Alzheimer's disease: design of the RADAR-AD study
- Implementation of a standardized Video-based Asynchronous Neurological Examination (VANE) in a multi-center observational study of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and AD related dementias
- Psychological and Emotional Effects of Digital Technology on Children in COVID-19 Pandemic
- The effect of tablet-based multimodal training on cognitive functioning in Alzheimer's disease: A randomized controlled trial
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 →