The findings of this protocol will provide information regarding the effects of acupuncture on MCI. 2 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Age- and sex-specific reference values were generated for three DANA tasks. 5 key findings →
Participants: 932 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The tCVFT-WS exhibited strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79). 5 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both DELPHI analysis of network function and DTI analysis detected a significant decrease in connectivity, excitability, and WM integrity in the SCD group compared to healthy control (HC) subjects; a significant decrease was also noted for aMCI and Dementia groups compared to HC. 3 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive impairments are a prevalent consequence of acquired brain injury, dementia, and age-related cognitive decline, hampering individuals' daily functioning and independence, with significant societal and economic implications. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative syndrome characterized by cognitive deficits, loss of daily functions, and mental and behavioral disorders, which cause stress and negatively affect the quality of life. 1 key finding →
Participants: 78 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Rhythmic auditory cueing (RAC) can improve gait parameters in neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease and stroke. 4 key findings →
Participants: 46 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although sarcopenia is closely linked to dementia, particularly Alzheimer disease (AD), there are few studies examining the prevalence and associated factors of sarcopenia in subjects with AD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 82 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Epidemiological studies consistently indicate a two- to threefold increased risk of dementia among individuals with schizophrenia, although estimates vary due to diagnostic and ascertainment biases. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Gait abnormalities are associated with cognitive decline, and reduced gait speed and gait asymmetry are markers of cognitive decline and increased fall risk in patients with established DLB. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 63 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The idea that eye movements can reflect certain aspects of brain function and inform on the presence of neurodegeneration is not a new one. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Eighteen studies identified four core components of multidomain interventions: physical exercise, cognitive training, nutrition, and cardiovascular risk management. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our studies showed that DC and DRs in VD and AD groups were significantly lower than those in controls, while AC values were significantly higher. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Object On the basis of determining the clinical effect of moxibustion on vascular dementia (VD), this study explored the central mechanism of moxibustion on VD through fMRI. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →