VARABOM.D scores showed significant positive associations with established cognitive assessments. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This ultra-brief questionnaire enables rapid screening for cognitive impairment (in <1 min) by family members or as part of community geriatric assessments. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MCI symptom awareness score among older adults in outpatient clinics was 7.45 ± 3.58 points. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MoCA scores showed significant positive correlations with cognitive-related cerebellar regions, particularly the left Crus I lobule (r = 0.40, p = 0.02) and total Crus I volume (r = 0.36, p = 0.04). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementias are expensive diseases: the net annual cost in European healthcare is about € 28.000 per case with a strong stage dependency, of which medical care accounts for about 19%. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
31/100
The model achieved and AUC of 0.72 [0.64, 0.81]. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive impairment (CI) is one of the most common causes of disability in the elderly. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings support apathy and APOE ε4 as robust predictors of conversion to MCI and ADD, and demonstrate novel associations between antidepressant use and conversion. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among Medicare beneficiaries from 2008 to 2018, AD incidence generally decreased while MCI increased. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
the cytokines set and immune response indicators have been identified. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Though biomarker assessments showed significant Aβ reduction for both anti-amyloid therapies, no direct correlation with clinical outcomes was observed, limiting their use as surrogate endpoints. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a neuropsychological clinical condition regarded as a prodromal stage of dementia, characterized by cognitive decline without significant impairment in daily functioning or autonomy. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Parameters such as clinical status, GCA scale, MTA scale, Fazekas scale, strategic infarction, Koedam score, stroke, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease do not have significant correlations with MoCA-INA scores. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We developed a Korean version of Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) optimized for screening dementia (MMSE-DS) and its' short form (SMMSE-DS). 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,555 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The feasibility criteria of >80% was met. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early identification of cognitive impairment remains challenging in settings where comprehensive cognitive and clinical assessments are not available. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
INTRODUCTIONMultimodal biomarkers have transformed Alzheimers disease research, but the incremental contribution of each modality to predicting progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains unclear. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,430 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundAccurate prediction of progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimers disease (AD) is important for prognosis, patient management, and clinical trial enrollment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,430 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is projected to experience the fastest growth in dementia burden globally, yet population-based data on cognitive aging remain scarce. 1 key finding →
Participants: 3,027 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundDeep-learning models predict mild cognitive impairment (MCI)-to-Alzheimers disease (AD) conversion from structural MRI with high accuracy. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 40 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings show that model-based, adaptive assessments can support high-frequency, remote detection and scalable longitudinal monitoring of early memory decline, providing a new way to assess memory decline trajectories in healthy aging and dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 24 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
IntroductionRemote cognitive assessments offer an accessible, scalable way to support clinical characterization and longitudinal monitoring of cognition. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 209 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.
- Susceptibility of the conventional criteria for mild cognitive impairment to false-positive diagnostic errors
- Correlating cerebral hypometabolism with future memory decline in subsequent converters to amnestic pre-mild cognitive impairment
- Lateralization of the Aberrant Amplitude of Low-Frequency Fluctuation within the Default Mode Network in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment
- Motor dysfunction in mild cognitive impairment and the risk of incident Alzheimer disease
- Neuropsychiatric symptoms and global functional impairment along the Alzheimer's continuum
- Cognitive Training Using Fully Immersive, Enriched Environment Virtual Reality for Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia: Feasibility and Usability Study
- Temporal trends in the long term risk of progression of mild cognitive impairment: a pooled analysis
- Slowing Cognitive Decline in Major Depressive Disorder and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized Clinical Trial
- AI-powered model for accurate prediction of MCI-to-AD progression
- A deep hybrid CNN-BiLSTM-BiGRU architecture with explainability for mild cognitive impairment detection using EEG
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 →