27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Despite the promise of a multitude of sensors and devices that can be applied, there are no agreed-upon standards for digital biomarkers, nor are there comprehensive evidence-based results for which digital biomarkers may be demonstrated to be most effective. 3 key findings →
Participants: 279 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The SCIENCe study confirms that SCD is a heterogeneous group, with preclinical AD and subthreshold psychiatric features. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 114 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A diagnosis of COPD is associated with an increased risk for MCI, particularly NA-MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,425 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study included patients with clinical SCD and SCD-free, healthy control (HC) participants with available baseline CSF and/or longitudinal cognitive data from the observational DZNE Longitudinal Cognitive Impairment and Dementia study. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 672 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We developed models for individualized risk prediction of cognitive decline in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) using plasma biomarkers of β-amyloid (Aβ), tau and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 573 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall estimates of the treatment effect were calculated by using a fixed-effects model, and statistical heterogeneity was measured by using a standard chi-squared statistic. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings suggest that VR training is an effective treatment for both people with MCI and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our analyses support that MNPI could improve the global cognition in older adults with MCI. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Medial temporal lobe atrophy seems to be a more important predictor of cognition than small-vessel disease in MCI. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 896 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Diabetes increased the risk of conversion to dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The development of MCI is associated with measurements of cognition and depression, racial and constitutional factors, and cerebrovascular disease. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 927 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The construct of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has evolved over the past 10 years since the publication of the new MCI definition at the Key Symposium in 2003, but the core criteria have remained unchanged. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An algorithm-derived diagnosis of aMCI showed few sociodemographic associations but was consistently associated with higher disability and neuropsychiatric symptoms in addition to showing substantial variation in prevalence across LAMIC populations. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 15,376 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CCT is efficacious on global cognition, select cognitive domains, and psychosocial functioning in people with mild cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The present meta-analysis revealed a significant effect for computer-based cognitive training on the performance of the memory domain of patients with MS. This finding may have significant implications in the current treatment practice when cognitive decline is detected in MS patients. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of the present study was to explore the effects of computer-based multidomain cognitive training program on Greek patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Medical record documentation reflects physician recognition of dementia, yet physicians are aware of, but have not documented, many patients with milder cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 365 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When proper normative values are used, only age and education, and not race or ethnicity, are associated with higher frequency of MCI. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) often represents an early form of Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The MMSE is the most widely used cognitive test but its accuracy and clinical utility in diagnosing cognitive disorders is not fully known. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
MoCA and MMSE were more similar for dementia cases, but MoCA distributes MCI cases across a broader score range with less ceiling effect. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 219 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
GOF indices were highest in normal controls, intermediate in MCI, and lowest in AD (p Conclusions fMRI connectivity indices distinguish patients with MCI who undergo cognitive decline and conversion to AD from those who remain stable over a 2- to 3-year follow-up period. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
MCI is common in patients with PD without dementia, affecting a range of cognitive domains, including memory, visual-spatial, and attention/executive abilities. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,346 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although the performance of the different methods still has room for improvement, the results are promising and this methodology has a great potential as a support tool for clinicians and healthcare professionals. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 27,780 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.
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 →