NPS are common even in the early stages of AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
45/100
The prevalence of cognitive impairment is higher in rural compared with urban populations. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
The sample consisted of 84 participants from the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma, including 53 females and 31 males [M age = 64.89 (SD = 9.73), M education = 12.58 (SD = 2.35)]. 2 key findings →
Participants: 84 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Teleneuropsychology is proving to be an excellent resource for clarifying cognitive and psychiatric diagnoses, and integrating individual strengths, weaknesses, and preferences into treatment and care plans used by other health care providers, patients, and caregivers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Data on 1888 patients seen at Alzheimer's Disease Diagnostic and Treatment Centers in California were used to examine possible differences in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) results for different racial-ethnic groups. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,888 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Twenty-nine articles met our inclusion criteria and were categorized into 3 groups as follows: (a) mobile versions of existing article or computerized neuropsychological tests; (b) new cognitive tests developed specifically for mobile platforms; and (c) the use of new types of data for cognitive assessment. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF) test is a commonly used neuropsychological assessment tool. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Elderly people affected by Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) usually report a perceived decline in cognitive functions that deeply impacts their quality of life. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The machine learning algorithm for NPTs has suggested potential use as a reference in differentiating cognitive impairment in the clinical setting. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increasing evidence supports a role for oxidative damage in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the earliest clinically detectable phase of the trajectory toward dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD), led to the need for even earlier detection and prevention of AD. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment refers to the transitional state between the cognitive changes of normal aging and the fully developed clinical features of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
As different signature changes associated with particular stages of disease burden are identified and validated, we anticipate expanded application of qEEG as a reliable and sensitive biomarker(s) of MCI and early Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Advances in AD biomarker research have demonstrated changes in amyloid-beta (Aβ), brain metabolism and other pathophysiologies prior to the onset of memory loss, with some markers possibly changing one or two decades earlier. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We studied whether Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) norms for detecting dementia in elderly outpatients vary according to educational attainment. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
45/100
This aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment in patients referred to a memory clinic, alone and in combination with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). 4 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The usefulness of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a screening test for identifying cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has been questioned because many patients who score above the suggested cutoff score of 24 exhibit severe focal or global cognitive deficits. 4 key findings →
Participants: 85 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The real prevalence of dementia in a given population must be determined through prevalence studies, using validated screening tests. 4 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
499 adults 48 to 91 years-old enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and were administered the MoCA during baseline. 4 key findings →
Participants: 499 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eighty patients were included (mean age: 81 years, interquartile range 74-86 years; 36.2% female, ∼80% with dementia and Alzheimer disease). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We estimated the prevalence of dementia at 6.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.4-8.0] and MCI at 10% (95% CI: 8.7-11.7). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,629 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MCI prevalence was comparable across groups (7.5%-8.0%), but progression to dementia varied (9.4% Black vs. 11.4% Other). 5 key findings →
Participants: 83,180 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Statistical analysis revealed a trend toward more impaired prefrontal FC with declining cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The paper discusses according to prevailing diagnostic systems and algorithms, which cognitive domains that are relevant to investigate, which tests that may be relevant, what kind of norms have satisfactory quality, which cut-off scores do best balance sensitivity and specificity in a neurodiagnostic context, and what kind of conclusions and recommendations that can be drawn from neuropsychological findings. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an early stage in the progression toward dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From across this tag
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.
- Machine learning diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment using advanced diffusion MRI and CSF biomarkers
- Item bias in cognitive screening measures: comparisons of elderly white, Afro-American, Hispanic and high and low education subgroups
- BIOFACE: A Prospective Study of Risk Factors, Cognition, and Biomarkers in a Cohort of Individuals with Early-Onset Mild Cognitive Impairment. Study Rationale and Research Protocols
- Outcomes after diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment in a large autopsy series
- Hypersynchronization in mild cognitive impairment: the 'X' model
- Novel diagnostic tools for identifying cognitive impairment using olfactory-stimulated functional near-infrared spectroscopy: patient-level, single-group, diagnostic trial
- Neuropsychiatric symptoms in mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer's disease: Clinical pattern and diagnostic implications
- Early dementia diagnosis, MCI-to-dementia risk prediction, and the role of machine learning methods for feature extraction from integrated biomarkers, in particular for EEG signal analysis
- Validation of the NPI-Q, a brief clinical form of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory
- Hypertension and the risk of mild cognitive impairment
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 (3.7% 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 →