Significant differences in AD biomarkers were observed among different groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 238 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
57/100
We evaluated a digital cognitive assessment platform, Philips IntelliSpace Cognition, in a case-control study of patients diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively normal (CN) older adults. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
The following four themes emerged from participants' feedback: (1) healthy lifestyle and behavioral changes, (2) a sense of self-awareness through introspection, (3) value in coach support, and (4) a desire for a change in program format (eg, frequency). 5 key findings →
Participants: 74 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Scalable cognitive paradigms that provide metrics such as the Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3) may be sensitive enough to relate to Alzheimer's disease biomarkers in the preclinical clinically unimpaired (CU) stage. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,287 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The adherence model was made up of the Digit Symbol and Arithmetic of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) and Lexical Verbal Fluency (LVF) -R tests. 1 key finding →
Participants: 43 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results suggest that CogEvo, a computerized cognitive assessment tool, is useful for evaluating early-stage cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 78 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A BHN enhances follow-up care and monitoring for patients with abnormal cognitive screening tests. 3 key findings →
Participants: 861 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study found that the SCREEN's longer administration time and complex scoring algorithm, which is proprietary and unavailable for independent analysis, presented challenges. 1 key finding →
Participants: 147 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Women show stronger associations between tau PET and cognitive outcomes in preclinical AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 343 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The GM data are linked to the retrospective DPUK cohort dataset, including genotypic and longitudinal phenotypic data. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggest that the MTB may provide a feasible approach to capture cognitive processes relevant in preclinical AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
However, there is growing recognition of the significant impact of motor dysfunction in individuals affected by AD. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Tablet-based cognitive assessment was feasible in rural and urban settings of Nigeria. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 207 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our study establishes a framework for evaluating practice effects in digital cognitive assessment tools. 2 key findings →
Participants: 116 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CERAD total scores were obtained by summing scores from the individual CERAD subtests (excluding the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]) into a total composite (maximum score = 100). 4 key findings →
Participants: 424 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
According to all previous literature, they are not associated with mortality. 4 key findings →
Participants: 456 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
56/100
Loss-of-function mutations in the GBA gene are associated with more severe cognitive impairment in PD, but the nature of these deficits is not well understood and whether common GBA polymorphisms influence cognitive performance in PD is not yet known. 4 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
135 subjects enrolled in a longitudinal clinicopathologic study were administered the MoCA by a single physician and the MMSE by a trained research assistant. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study was designed to evaluate whether subjects with amyloid beta (Aβ) pathology, detected using florbetapir positron emission tomorgraphy (PET), demonstrated greater cognitive decline than subjects without Aβ pathology. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite advances in the clinical characterization of FTD, little is known about its rate of progression. 4 key findings →
Participants: 70 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
59 recruiting sites for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 41 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Plasma sphingolipids have been shown to predict cognitive impairment and hippocampal volume loss, but there is little research in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 120 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common type of dementia, is a severe neurodegenerative disorder. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most widely used instrument for the screening of cognitive impairment worldwide, but its ability to produce valid estimates of dementia in populations of low socioeconomic status and minimal literacy skills has not been adequately established. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,933 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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