Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The 3D-CAM operationalizes the CAM algorithm using a 3-minute structured assessment with high sensitivity and specificity relative to a reference standard and could be an important tool for improving recognition of delirium. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 201 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
From a longitudinal study of normal (Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] = 0; n = 77) and mildly impaired (CDR = 0.5; n = 167) participants with 5 or more annual clinical assessments, baseline level of cognitive impairment in daily life was graded using CDR sum of boxes (CDR-SB) and level of cognitive performance impairment was graded using neuropsychological test scores. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This text discusses the characterisation of subjective cognitive decline (SCD), a term conceived in 2014 to describe cognitively unimpaired individuals who are concerned about reduced cognitive function and seek medical help. 3 key findings →
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
This relationship was evident even after accounting for degree of memory deficit across the continuum of cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 793 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
The authors used mixed-effects growth models to examine longitudinal change in neuropsychological performance over a 4-year period among 197 individuals who were either normal or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
56/100
ADNI participants (921 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (7) years and mean (SD) of 17 (3) years of education; 485 (53%) were female, 30 (3%) were Asian, 105 (11%) were Black, and 756 (82%) were White. eVAL participants (279 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (8) years and mean (SD) of 17 (2) years of education; 151 (54%) were female, 17 (6%) were Asian, 12 (4%) were Black, and 245 (88%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 921 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The average detection rates for mild cognitive impairment is 0.08 (interquartile range=0.00-0.02) for both clinicians and practices, suggesting that only about 8% of expected cases were diagnosed on average. 3 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sex differences in Alzheimer's disease (AD) biology and progression are not yet fully characterized. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Identifying clinical measures that track disease in the earliest stages of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is important for clinical trials. 4 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The AS task is a useful measure of executive function across the AD spectrum. 1 key finding →
Participants: 182 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Tests of both episodic memory and executive function are predictors of time to progression from mild impairment to a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Participants: 235 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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
These results suggest that increased baseline hallucinations, apathy and anxiety are associated with current and future disease progression in AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ACoE's overall cognitive assessments were significantly reliable (ICC [intraclass correlation coefficient]=0.89; P<.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 35 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
41/100
RoCA classifies patients similarly to gold standard paper-based tests, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.91; P<.001). 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 35 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our study highlights the potential of Decipher‐AI for screening undiagnosed cognitive impairment in primary care. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Surprisingly, demographic normalisation worsened rather than improved diagnostic accuracy for detecting MCI with both MoCA and MMSE, reducing their effectiveness as diagnostic tools and confirming our hypothesis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events