We included 88 patients with dementia due to AD from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort. 4 key findings →
Participants: 88 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Sensitive and specific instruments are required to screen for cognitive impairment (CI) in busy clinical practice. 4 key findings →
Participants: 73 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
52/100
Research in gerontology has demonstrated mixed effects of social support on cognitive decline and dementia: Social support has been shown to be protective in some studies, but not in others. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the within-language condition, combined speech timing and lexico-semantic features yielded maximal classification (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]=0.88), outperforming single-feature models (AUC=0.79 for timing features; AUC=0.80 for lexico-semantic features). 5 key findings →
Participants: 211 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 893 participants with average age 93 years (range 90-102), 43 % had SMC. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 893 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a year-long, home-based individual cognitive stimulation (iCS) program on cognitive performance, mood, functional independence, and quality of life (QoL) in older adults with mild Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MMSE scores ranged from 5 to 29 (mean +/- SD = 19.0 +/- 4.8) and the ADAS scores ranged from 7 to 63 (24.3 +/- 10.9). 5 key findings →
Participants: 174 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Index of ADL was developed to study results of treatment and prognosis in the elderly and chronically ill. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,001 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
52/100
Scores on the full and abbreviated versions of the MoCA can be linked directly to the MMSE. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 199 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The pattern of deficits across tasks was qualitatively compared with normal age-related decline, and early-stage dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 460 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Repetitive head trauma is a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease and is the primary cause of chronic traumatic encephalopathy. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our study is well placed to evaluate the clinical utility of RMT assessments. 3 key findings →
Participants: 220 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The ICA demonstrated convergent validity with MoCA (Pearson r=0.58, p<0.0001) and ACE (r=0.62, p<0.0001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 230 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Differences in expressing facial emotions are broadly observed in people with cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 493 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Previous studies have shown that the diagnostic performance of digital cognitive tests is comparable with that of conventional paper-and-pencil tests. 3 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Extended monitoring detects subclinical epileptiform activity in a substantial proportion of patients with AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Analysis showed strong correlation between (1) XpressO memory tasks scores and the MoCA Memory Index Score (p-values < 0.001), and between (2) XpressO sub-test scores and MoCA total score (p-values < 0.005). 5 key findings →
Participants: 118 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Variability in step velocity and cadence had the highest predictive utility in identifying individuals with mild AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 406 FHS (Framingham Heart Study) and 59 BHS (Bogalusa Heart Study) participants with traditional neuropsychological tests and digital assessments using the Defense Automated Neurocognitive Assessment (DANA) smartphone protocol were included. 5 key findings →
Participants: 406 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
52/100
Pupillometry is a measurement of pupil dilation commonly performed as part of neurological assessments. 1 key finding →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 101 participants, 85 older adults without dementia (84.1%) who completed the study protocol were included in the statistical analysis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The SCST total score, cognitive domain scores (attention, language, visuospatial function, memory, executive function), and most of the subtest scores decreased significantly in the order of SCD, MCI and dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 254 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hypertension is associated with impaired cognition, and when combined with MCI, it may lead to a poor prognosis. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pilot study is the first trial evaluating the potential benefits of home-based tailored and adaptive CCT in relation to cognitive and disease self-management in older diabetic adults. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
51/100
The Mini-Cog, a composite of three-item recall and clock drawing, was developed as a brief test for discriminating demented from non-demented persons in a community sample of culturally, linguistically, and educationally heterogeneous older adults. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →