27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Using the OSHPE criteria, we found more participants with MCI than with frailty. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,104 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
MCI is a nosological entity proposed as an intermediate state between normal aging and dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CERAD total scores were obtained by summing scores from the individual CERAD subtests (excluding the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]) into a total composite (maximum score = 100). 4 key findings →
Participants: 424 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
135 subjects enrolled in a longitudinal clinicopathologic study were administered the MoCA by a single physician and the MMSE by a trained research assistant. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most widely used instrument for the screening of cognitive impairment worldwide, but its ability to produce valid estimates of dementia in populations of low socioeconomic status and minimal literacy skills has not been adequately established. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,933 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) measures abilities broadly related to executive function (EF), including WAIS-R Digit Symbol Substitution, Digit Span Backwards, Trails A and B, Category Fluency, and Clock Drawing. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
SB-C significantly differentiated cognitively unimpaired and impaired groups (P < 0.001), correlated with standard cognitive measures, and showed moderate-to-high area under the curve (0.56-0.82) for classifying biomarker positivity, with strongest results in BioFINDER-Primary Care. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Cognitive performance as measured by the MMSE varies within the population by age and education.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
MCI diagnosis usually was associated with comorbid neuropathologies; less than one-quarter of MCI cases showed "pure" AD at autopsy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,337 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Within a heterogenous group of MCI patients, including many with clinically significant CVD, baseline memory and executive performance significantly predicted likelihood to develop dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals with all types of mild cognitive impairment have an elevated risk of dementia over 3 years, more so in those with an APOE epsilon4 allele. 3 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
MCI diagnosis frequencies are substantively affected by the stringency of the criteria, but the relative rankings of MCI subtype diagnoses are fairly consistent regardless of the stringency of the criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 373 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An eight-week course of IVIG totaling 2 g/kg in MCI is safe but is not sufficient to sustain an initial reduction in brain atrophy or a temporary delay in conversion to dementia at five years. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Diabetes was associated with an increased risk of MCI in elderly persons. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Mini-Mental State (MMS) is a brief structured test of cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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
The mean follow-up period for the cohort was 34 months. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
When patients with MCI underwent clinical follow-up, 29 progressed to dementia, while 44 remained stable. 2 key findings →
Participants: 73 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study investigated cross-sectional and longitudinal neuropsychological data from 55 patients: 38 with Alzheimer's disease and 18 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We developed an accurate prognostic model for predicting MCI-to-dementia progression over a three-year period. 4 key findings →
Participants: 139 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
10 of the 846 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 →