28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Higher MCI prevalence was identified in community-dwelling older adult populations in China compared with some other countries, possibly due to more broadened criteria being adopted for confirming the diagnosis. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 112,632 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials where the participants had PDD or PD-MCI, and where the intervention was intended to train general or specific areas of cognitive function, targeting either a single domain or multiple domains of cognition, and was compared to a control condition. 5 key findings →
Participants: 225 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MCI prevalence varied among Hispanic/Latino backgrounds, but not as widely as reported in the previous studies. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,377 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prevalence of MCI in China was 15.4%, which varied by demographics, lifestyles, morbidity, screening tools, and diagnostic criteria. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 123,766 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Most studies have focused on dementia and suicidal behavior, with inconsistent results. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 21 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 6451 individuals, the mean (SD) age was 59.4 (6.1) years, and 3841 (59.5%) were women. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,190 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The TICS has high diagnostic validity for identification of dementia among ethnically diverse older adults, especially when supported by the DQ and prior visit data. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 256 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MCI was prevalent in 24.7% of participants at baseline. 2 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 3,673 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In this diverse community-based cohort, cross-sectional data revealed significant race/ethnic disparities in the prevalence of MCI and dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 989 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Previous studies have suggested that education and race may affect performance on standardized mental status tests. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
When assessed by simple questions, SMC appear to be present in the minority of those with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
International hospital-based studies have indicated a high risk of cognitive impairment after stroke, evidence from community-based studies in China is scarce. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 599 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest cutoffs may need to be stratified by race/ethnicity and education to ensure detecting MCI from normal and MCI from dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,895 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Physicians noted impairment in a minority of impaired patients. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,107 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
It could be of great improvement for the use of the MMSE in dementia screening in Chinese elderly population. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 9,629 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Prior studies have analyzed the burden of cognitive impairment, but often use potentially biased prevalence-based methods or measure only years lived with impairment, without estimating other relevant metrics. 3 key findings →
Participants: 29,304 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prevalences of overall MCI, MCI-A, MCI-CVD, MCI-VRF, and MCI-O were 20.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 20.0-21.6%), 6.1% (95% CI = 5.7-6.6%), 3.8% (95% CI = 3.4-4.2%), 4.9% (95% CI = 4.5-5.4%), and 5.9% (95% CI = 5.5-6.4%) respectively. 2 key findings →
Participants: 10,276 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The identification of biological and pathophysiological processes implicated in different forms of dementia is itself dependent on reliable descriptions of cognitive performance and capacities. 2 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Previous research has shown that the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMS) is biased as a measure of cognitive impairment in minority and low-education patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 590 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A registry of the University of Washington Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Satellite. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 371 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Given considerable variation in diagnostic and therapeutic practice, there is a need for national guidance on the use of neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, cognitive testing, follow-up and diagnostic terminology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results highlight the need to increase the overall detection rates of MCI and of dementia particularly in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, MMSE scores exhibited ceiling effects, poor test-retest reliability, limited sensitivity to subtle brain abnormalities, and a high rate of intrusion elsewhere in the neuropsychological battery. 5 key findings →
Participants: 99 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The purpose of the study was to provide characterization of Mexican Americans who meet criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
Participants: 633 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A heterogeneous community sample (n=371) of predominantly ethnic minority elderly assessed by standardized research protocol, 231 of whom met criteria for dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
Participants: 371 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →