Retention intervals of at least three days were needed to evidence significant forgetting at both recognition and paired-associate recall test. 5 key findings →
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.
Currently, computerized batteries are of great value in detecting cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older patients with dementia and delirium are more prone to adverse events in hospital, but formal cognitive assessment to identify these vulnerable patients on admission is often not carried out by junior doctors. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
People with neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease and dementia are known to have difficulties in language and communication. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A simple, completely objective scoring system for a clock completion test has been developed which involves only the number of digits placed in the fourth quadrant of a pre-drawn circle. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The clock-drawing test meets defined criteria for a cognitive screening instrument. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
On average, the accuracy of our step length estimation was about 98%. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
New technologies have considerable potential to support people with semantic dementia-a form of progressive aphasia-in their everyday lives, but evidence is still sparse. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results demonstrate that the multi-modal classifier achieved strong classification performance (accuracy = 68.64%; precision = 73.97%; F1-score=74.48%), with the highest recall (76.39%) from a model incorporating demographics and driving features, and prediction performance (accuracy = 70.48%; precision = 71.88%; F1-score = 74.80%, recall = 77.97%). 1 key finding →
Participants: 118 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sixty participants (30 intervention, 30 control) were recruited and followed up between March 2024 to September 2025. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although smartphone usage time is not directly associated with ikigai in older adults, it may reflect preserved physical and cognitive abilities required to navigate digital environments. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides quantitative evidence supporting the complementary use of multiple cognitive assessment tools. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 250 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 352 records identified, five studies involving 245 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Participants: 245 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive impairment is a prevalent symptom extending from physiological ageing to disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 43 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioral ALS Screen (ECAS) is the most validated and widely-used ALS-specific cognitive assessment tool, yet paper-and-pencil manual scoring introduces inter-rater variability that can significantly limit reliability and reproducibility in multi-site clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings support mApp-FTT validity as a measure of motor function across neurodegenerative conditions. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Identifying scalable, objective markers of dementia risk is essential for early prevention and intervention. 3 key findings →
Participants: 562 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Practice testing with detailed, corrective feedback is an effective intervention for targeting caregivers’ dementia-related knowledge. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Wearable devices repeatedly measure activity, sleep, and nocturnal physiology, but their value for three-class cognitive screening remains uncertain. 1 key finding →
Participants: 174 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MedCAT Comorbidity demonstrated predictive ability for mortality (HR 1.11 per condition), although the model fit was better using comorbidity from hospital admission data. 4 key findings →
Participants: 3,543 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This interdisciplinary, prototype-centered AI education program was associated with significant short-term improvements in students’ perceived AI knowledge, digital mental health readiness, interdisciplinary collaboration, innovation capacity, STEM career readiness, and solution-design ability. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Strengths and limitations of this study This study evaluates a digitally enabled remote monitoring model for people living with dementia that integrates passive in-home sensors and algorithm-derived digital biomarkers to detect clinically relevant changes such as infection risk, behavioural disturbance and physiological deterioration. 5 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Changes in four outcome measures from initiation of treatment to discharge were evaluated for statistical significance: quality of life and three therapist-rated Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) of overall cognition, language expression, and language comprehension. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neurodegenerative conditions increasingly adopt digital and assistive technologies in community and home-based settings to support independence, symptom management and quality of life. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Implementation of an EHR-enabled AD care pathway was associated with improved adoption of guideline-concordant cognitive assessment and recommended diagnostic evaluation in primary care across three health systems. 5 key findings →
Participants: 10,206 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →