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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Patients with MCI converted to AD at an annual rate of 17.2%. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 85 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Inflammatory mechanisms have been implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and might be mediated via the COX-2 enzyme. 3 key findings →
Participants: 725 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
69/100
Progression from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease in this cohort was best determined by combining four common, easily administered, cognitive measures. 1 key finding →
Participants: 539 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Of 486 older adults who provided consent, 375 (with rMDD, MCI, or both) received at least 1 intervention session (mean [SD] age, 72.2 [6.4] years; 232 women [62%] and 143 men [38%]). 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Qualitatively, our review of 57 MCI versus HC comparisons suggests substantial inconsistency; 9 showed no group difference, 8 showed MCI > HC and 22 showed HC > MCI across the brain, and 18 showed regionally-mixed directions of effect. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The field of aging and dementia is focusing on the characterization of the earliest stages of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of developing criteria for the symptomatic predementia phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD), referred to in this article as mild cognitive impairment due to AD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Anticholinergic medication burden in schizophrenia is substantial, common, conferred by multiple medication classes, and associated with cognitive impairments across all cognitive domains. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,120 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The NIA-AA criteria apply to most MCI subjects in both the community and clinical trials settings; however, a sizeable proportion of subjects had conflicting biomarkers, which may be very important and need to be explored. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The temporal relationship of cognitive deficit and functional impairment in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is not well characterized. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We compared two methods of diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI): conventional Petersen/Winblad criteria as operationalized by the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and an actuarial neuropsychological method put forward by Jak and Bondi designed to balance sensitivity and reliability. 1,150 ADNI participants were diagnosed at baseline as cognitively normal (CN) or MCI via ADNI criteria (MCI: n = 846; CN: n = 304) or Jak/Bondi criteria (MCI: n = 401; CN: n = 749), and the two MCI samples were submitted to cluster and discriminant function analyses. 2 key findings →
Participants: 846 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients with MCI had a predominant memory impairment with relative sparing of other cognitive domains and were intermediate between clinically normal individuals and patients with AD on cognitive and functional ratings. 3 key findings →
Participants: 769 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Four subtypes emerged: (1) dysnomic (n = 153), (2) dysexecutive (n = 102), (3) amnestic (n = 288), and (4) cluster-derived normal (n = 282) who performed within normal limits on cognitive testing. 4 key findings →
Participants: 153 Evidence: moderate
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 Petersen/Winblad criteria classified 34% of participants as having MCI while the Jak/Bondi criteria classified 24% as MCI. 3 key findings →
Participants: 58 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Subjective cognitive complaints are a criterion for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), despite their uncertain relationship to objective memory performance in MCI. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
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
50/100
Abnormalities of the P600 or N400 in mild cognitive impairment are associated with an increased risk of subsequent conversion to Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examined the validity of the four standard psychological paradigms that have been operationally defined within the CogState brief computerized cognitive assessment battery. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our novel neuropsychological approach improved the staging of MCI by (1) capturing individuals at an early symptomatic stage, (2) minimizing false-positive cases, and (3) identifying a late MCI group further along the disease trajectory. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To evaluate the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation therapies (CRTs) for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) show patterns of change in Alzheimer's disease (AD) that precede dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an early stage of non-age-related cognitive decline with an increased risk of progressing to dementia. 4 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 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 →