31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We recruited 825 individuals from the CHARLS sample and 766 subjects from hospitals in six provinces and cities in China. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 825 Evidence: moderate
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
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
Fit of the models to the data was adequate for general cognitive performance (root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.03; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94; standardised root mean residual (SRMR)=0.05), language (RMSEA=0.02; CFI=0.95; SRMR=0.05) and good for memory (RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02) and executive functioning (RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.98; SRMR=0.03). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,878 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed high levels of missing data in most cognitive test items - on average 13% and as high as 65%. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,755 Evidence: moderate
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
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
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
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
Cognitive assessment appropriate for diagnosis of dementia and CIND in large population surveys could be improved with more targeted information from informants and additional cognitive tests targeting other areas of brain function. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) is widely used in AD, but may be less responsive to change when used in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →
Participants: 811 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) has a score range of 0 to 100 and provides quantitative assessment on attention, concentration, orientation, short-term memory, long-term memory, language abilities, visual construction, list-generating fluency, abstraction, and judgment.
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
SMC was associated with poorer objective memory performance even after controlling the effect of depression and demographic data, but SMC did not predict faster cognitive decline or dementia over 3 years. 5 key findings →
Participants: 543 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Medicare annual wellness visit-a preventive care visit free to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part B-requires detection of cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
< 0.0001) were significantly higher for the MCI cohort. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
< 0.001) for both measures. When distinguishing NC from MCI/DM, the CIST outperformed the K-MMSE, demonstrating a higher AUC (0.869 vs. 0.842) and F1-score (0.697 vs. 0.409). 3 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Structural brain imaging is guideline-recommended for cases with newly diagnosed cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,095,947 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Change detected by the MCI-CGIC was associated with baseline clinical severity and with change in clinical ratings over 6 and 12 months, supporting the validity of a CGIC approach in MCI. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Various missing codes were used to document reasons for missingness. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The fMRI entropy classifier matched the tau PET model in accuracy and outperformed it in F1 score (0.64 vs. 0.61) and area under the curve (AUC; 0.73 vs. 0.67). 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There are significant opportunities for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to play important roles in the primary and secondary prevention of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) beyond current practices. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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