27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We performed a systematic review of studies focusing on the automatic prediction of the progression of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, and a quantitative analysis of the methodological choices impacting performance. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 172 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite the promise of a multitude of sensors and devices that can be applied, there are no agreed-upon standards for digital biomarkers, nor are there comprehensive evidence-based results for which digital biomarkers may be demonstrated to be most effective. 3 key findings →
Participants: 279 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although the performance of the different methods still has room for improvement, the results are promising and this methodology has a great potential as a support tool for clinicians and healthcare professionals. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early diagnosis of cognitive disorders in older adults is a major healthcare priority with benefits to patients, families, and health systems. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Previous neuroimaging studies reveal that MCI is associated with aberrant sensory-perceptual processing in cortical brain regions subserving auditory and language function. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Digital cognitive tests showed good performances for MCI and dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 56 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This simple and feasible cognitive impairment prediction model could identify community-dwelling elderly people at the greatest 3-year risk for cognitive impairment, which could help community nurses in the early identification of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The dementia population is increasing as the world's population is growing older. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Changes to everyday spoken language ("connected language") are evident in persons with AD dementia, yet little is known about when these changes are first detectable on the continuum of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 264 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DCR outperforms the MMSE in detecting and classifying cognitive impairment-in a fraction of the time-while being not influenced by a patient's ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Participants: 360 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's Disease is a complex, multifactorial, and comorbid condition. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proposed approach offers a fully automated identification of MCI and dementia based on a recorded neuropsychological test, providing an opportunity to develop a remote screening tool that could be adapted easily to any language. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,084 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Age, education level, number of pain sites, pain duration, pain level, depression and sleep quality were risk factors of MCI in older patients with chronic pain. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 612 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We previously developed a novel machine-learning-based brain age model that was sensitive to amyloid. 3 key findings →
Participants: 757 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our review shows that picture description tasks are useful tools for detecting differences in a wide variety of language and communicative measures. 2 key findings →
Participants: 127 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We demonstrated that it was both feasible and acceptable to set up these sensors in the community and unobtrusively collect data. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 59 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neuropsychological tests showed significant differences between controls and mdMCI, and between controls and eD participants; GPCog, MoCA, PF, and SF also discriminated between controls and aMCI. 5 key findings →
Participants: 96 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The speech of patients with progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA) has often been described clinically, but these descriptions lack support from quantitative data. 1 key finding →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Age-related hearing loss (ARHL), also called presbycusis, is a progressive disorder affecting hearing functions and among the elderly has been recognized as the third most frequent condition. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The machine learning model developed in this study demonstrated strong classification performance in detecting and differentiating depression, anxiety, and apathy. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our results suggest that correlating NLP and ASA with clinician observations is an objective and novel approach to measuring speech and language changes in neurodegenerative disorders. 2 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum, the prodromal state of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) precedes AD dementia and identifying MCI individuals at risk of progression is important for clinical management. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
On clinical data, this innovative approach for early diagnosis might provide more insight into pathophysiological processes underlying degenerative changes, as well as toward a personalized risk evaluation for pharmacological, nonpharmacological, and rehabilitation treatments. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BrainCheck Memory assessments were significantly correlated to the SLUMS exam, with coefficients ranging from .5 to .7. 5 key findings →
Participants: 398 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia rates are projected to increase significantly by 2050, posing considerable challenges for healthcare systems worldwide. 3 key findings →
Participants: 144 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →