Our study is well placed to evaluate the clinical utility of RMT assessments. 3 key findings →
Participants: 220 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.
The ICA demonstrated convergent validity with MoCA (Pearson r=0.58, p<0.0001) and ACE (r=0.62, p<0.0001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 230 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Previous studies have shown that the diagnostic performance of digital cognitive tests is comparable with that of conventional paper-and-pencil tests. 3 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The objective of this study was to assess the convergent validity of a 26-point Telephone Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in a longitudinal cohort of 46 Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Analysis showed strong correlation between (1) XpressO memory tasks scores and the MoCA Memory Index Score (p-values < 0.001), and between (2) XpressO sub-test scores and MoCA total score (p-values < 0.005). 5 key findings →
Participants: 118 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Variability in step velocity and cadence had the highest predictive utility in identifying individuals with mild AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 406 FHS (Framingham Heart Study) and 59 BHS (Bogalusa Heart Study) participants with traditional neuropsychological tests and digital assessments using the Defense Automated Neurocognitive Assessment (DANA) smartphone protocol were included. 5 key findings →
Participants: 406 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 101 participants, 85 older adults without dementia (84.1%) who completed the study protocol were included in the statistical analysis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The SCST total score, cognitive domain scores (attention, language, visuospatial function, memory, executive function), and most of the subtest scores decreased significantly in the order of SCD, MCI and dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 254 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hypertension is associated with impaired cognition, and when combined with MCI, it may lead to a poor prognosis. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pilot study is the first trial evaluating the potential benefits of home-based tailored and adaptive CCT in relation to cognitive and disease self-management in older diabetic adults. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, the results suggest that ARC is reliable and valid and represents a feasible tool for assessing cognitive changes associated with the earliest stages of AD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Repeated smartphone-assisted cognitive testing is feasible with reasonable adherence and moderate relative validity for the Stroop and the Trail Making tests compared with conventional neuropsychological tests. 3 key findings →
Participants: 151 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Detecting early signs of cognitive decline is crucial for early detection and treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found patient and care partner input to be critical throughout the development process for early identification of design and usability issues and for identifying solutions not previously considered by our research team. 2 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BrainCheck was able to distinguish between diagnoses of dementia, MCI, and NC, providing a potentially reliable tool for early detection of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Participants: 99 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Web-based cognitive tests have potential for standardized screening in neurodegenerative disorders. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results suggest that the ki:e SB-C is an objective, scalable, and reliable indicator of cognitive decline, fit for purpose as a remote assessment in clinical early dementia trials. 3 key findings →
Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
First, in the normative sample, the total score on the Inbrain CST was significantly affected by age, years of education, and gender. 4 key findings →
Participants: 480 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Beynex categorization scores showed a moderate agreement with MoCA ratings (weighted Cohen's Kappa = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.38-0.60). 4 key findings →
Participants: 91 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MDT-OS and ORR-LDR were weakly-to-moderately correlated with the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC5) (r = 0.3-0.44, p < .001) and with several other measures of episodic memory, processing speed, and executive function. 5 key findings →
Participants: 172 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We received completed questionnaires from physicians for 45 patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite the demonstrated benefits of computerized cognitive training for older adults, little is known about the determinants of training behavior. 3 key findings →
Participants: 219 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ANOVA and Bayesian t-test found no significant differences between the task when it was remotely self-administered by participants at home compared to when it was taken under controlled lab conditions. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognigram was piloted in the Emergency Department, Family Medicine, and Geriatric Psychiatry clinics: 58 adults (23 men, 35 women), 67.9 ± 9.8 years (range 43-91), completed the Cognigram and 5-item liking survey. 5 key findings →
Participants: 58 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.
- Scoping review: the empowerment of Alzheimer's Disease caregivers with mHealth applications
- Subjective Versus Objective Assessment of Cognitive Functioning in Primary Care
- Device-Embedded Cameras for Eye Tracking-Based Cognitive Assessment: Validation With Paper-Pencil and Computerized Cognitive Composites
- Artificial Intelligence, Speech, and Language Processing Approaches to Monitoring Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review
- Speech biomarkers of risk factors for vascular dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment
- Advances in healthcare wearable devices
- New tablet-based screening tool for assessment of cognitive decline in Nigeria
- The Functionality, Evidence, and Privacy Issues Around Smartphone Apps for the Top Neuropsychiatric Conditions
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 →