Dementia and mild cognitive impairment are significant contributors to disability and dependency in older adults. 5 key findings →
Participants: 67 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The interventions were positively perceived, with 72.0% finding the consultation informative and 69.2% considering the app useful. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 188 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides corroborating evidence that solanezumab does not slow cognitive decline in preclinical AD as exhibited with a computerized cognitive assessment with some evidence that solanezumab may exacerbate cognition on select digital outcomes. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,117 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our preliminary findings suggest that web-based cognitive training programs may benefit African Americans with MCI at least as much as Caucasians, and highlight the need to further study underrepresented minorities in AD prevention trials. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 105 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 3-minute START task offers a means of supporting cognitive health in older adults and could be used at scale and within a precision medicine approach to reduce risk of cognitive decline in a targeted way. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 6,544 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR) is a syndrome characterized by subjective memory complaints and slow walking speeds that can identify older adults at increased risk for developing Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia (ADRD). 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 79 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study investigated the effect of a home-based computerized cognitive training program that utilizes a digital application for training abacus-based mental calculations, "SoroTouch," on the cognitive functions of healthy middle-aged and older people using a randomized controlled trial. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The addition of CS to the SPEP was a safe and effective method to gain statistically significant improvements in cognition, balance, FM, UEMS, IADL, and reduction in depression in PwAD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study showed no benefit of the CT program on working memory, processing speed and executive function. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our sample had a mean age of 66.8 (SD = 5.3) years, a mean HAM-D score of 19.4 (SD = 7.5), and a mean PHQ-9 score of 18.0 (SD = 6.3). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
76/100
The findings of this cohort study suggest that smartphones could offer a feasible, reliable, valid, and scalable solution for remote evaluations of FTLD and may improve early detection. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 258 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The care of people with dementia is largely provided by informal caregivers (e.g., family, friends), which can present significant challenges and increase caregivers' burden. 5 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Motor measures will be compared to a blood-based AD biomarker, phosphorylated tau 181 to develop an algorithm that classifies preclinical AD risk. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,382 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Through interactive presentations promoting brain health, the programme provides for personal reflection that may enhance capability, opportunity and motivation for behaviour change. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides insights into neuroplasticity and adaptive changes resulting from cognitive training in patients with VCIND, with implications for potential therapeutic strategies. 2 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although computerized cognitive training (CCT) is an effective digital intervention for cognitive impairment, its dose-response relationship is understudied. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,709 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A smartphone application collected 2 modalities of cognitive data, digital voice and screen-based behaviors, from the FHS (Framingham Heart Study) multigenerational Generation 2 (Gen 2) and Generation 3 (Gen 3) cohorts. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 455 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The CDR+NACC FTLD global score interacted with time on battery percentage such that participants with prodromal or symptomatic FTLD demonstrated less change in battery percentage throughout the day (a proxy for less smartphone use) than clinically normal participants (P<.001 in both cases). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Five Lives assessment demonstrates high usability and reliability among older adults. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 756 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study will provide insights into whether cognitive training and psychoeducation on a healthy, active lifestyle have short- and long-term (neuro-)protective effects for individuals with iRBD. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results suggest that a longitudinal digital biomarker differentiates between controls and patients with MCI in a very cost-effective and noninvasive way and hence may be very useful for identifying patients with very early AD who can benefit from clinical trials and new, disease-modifying therapies. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Depression, socioeconomic status, hearing handicap, loneliness, education, smoking, tinnitus, little exercise, small social network, stroke, diabetes, and hypertension were all associated with impairments in at least one cognitive measure. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,327 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study suggests that the DCS is an effective and efficient tool for dementia and MCI case-finding in large-scale cognitive screening. 5 key findings →
Participants: 11,186 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Informal carers of people with dementia were affected by BPSD in their care recipients. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 203 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
HIGHLIGHTS: We demonstrated the diagnostic performance of qLRP in Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 107 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 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.
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 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