27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Multiday BRANCH is a feasible, reliable, and valid cognitive measure that may be useful for identifying subtle changes in learning and memory processes in older adults. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) represents a major and rapidly growing burden to the healthcare ecosystem. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The One Card Learning Test (OCL80) from the Cogstate Brief Battery-a digital cognitive test used both in-person and remotely in clinical trials and in healthcare contexts to inform health decisions-has shown high sensitivity to changes in memory in early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Population aging brings with it cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The AD group performed significantly lower on the associative learning (p = 0.01) and associative memory assessments (p = 0.002), than the HC and AR groups. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The data show that dementia research is exponentially developing following the evolution of widespread use of computer science. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive, multifactorial, chronic, neurodegenerative disease with high prevalence and limited therapeutic options, making it a global health crisis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Exploratory factor analysis revealed the orientation/spatial cognitive function (orientation and spatial cognition) and attention/executive function (attention, memory, and execution) factors. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CompCogs included the Face test (correct response) and Word and Forms with Short term memory tests (reaction time). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Affective computing (also referred to as artificial emotion intelligence or emotion AI) is the study and development of systems and devices that can recognize, interpret, process, and simulate emotion or other affective phenomena. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Digital therapeutics (DTx) are a subset of digital health which are often coupled with artificial intelligence (A.I.) techniques and machine learning systems. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An aging population and human longevity is a global trend. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The system uses a collected dataset of 1928 records, taken from 11 HD patients and 11 healthy persons in Lithuania, to gather statistics about examinations and presents the results as medical evaluation with prediction on the state of health. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Wearable devices have found numerous applications in healthcare ranging from physiological diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension and muscle disorders to neurocognitive disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other psychological diseases. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In addition to causing distress and disability to the individual, neuropsychiatric disorders are also extremely expensive to society and governments. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with ERP, MRI, or neuropsychological tests alone, the VR-DOT could provide additional predictive information in a low-cost, computerized, and noninvasive way. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The MoCA appears to have utility as a cognitive screen for early detection of AD and for MCI and warrants further investigation regarding its applicability in primary care settings, varying ethnic groups, and younger at-risk individuals. 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our objective was to assess the validity of the Edinburgh Cognitive and Behaviour ALS Screen (ECAS), a multi-domain screen designed to detect cognitive deficits in patients with motor disorders. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Commercial advertising of computerized "brain games" may result in clinicians being asked whether brain games prevent dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings indicated that participants felt the training was acceptable, enhanced their awareness, and encouraged them to monitor their thinking abilities. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research investigating treatments and interventions for cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease (AD) suffer due to difficulties in accurately identifying individuals at risk of AD in the pre-symptomatic stages of the disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All participants had significant increases in independent response frequencies, level of personal satisfaction, and heart rates during program sessions as opposed to baseline or control sessions. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During baseline, the mean frequency of correct target responses was virtually zero. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An end-to-end suite of technologies has been established for the unobtrusive and continuous monitoring of health and activity changes occurring in the daily life of older adults over extended periods of time. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of this research is to examine the predictors of smartphone uses for health information-seeking (SHIS) in the Korean elderly. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
10 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 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 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 →