The mean age of the study population was 78 ± 6.6 years and 123 (76.9%) were women. 4 key findings →
Participants: 160 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
Despite the increasing use of health-based technologies, this analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov suggests that only a few apps for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions are being clinically evaluated in trials. 4 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Web-based cognitive tests have potential for standardized screening in neurodegenerative disorders. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
First, in the normative sample, the total score on the Inbrain CST was significantly affected by age, years of education, and gender. 4 key findings →
Participants: 480 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite the demonstrated benefits of computerized cognitive training for older adults, little is known about the determinants of training behavior. 3 key findings →
Participants: 219 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This work demonstrates a mobile version of VisMET capable of estimating the presence of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Participants: 250 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Eighty-three apps were reviewed (stroke, N=8; migraine, N=25; Alzheimer's disease and dementia, N=8; depression, N=7; anxiety, N=14; apps targeting depression and anxiety, N=21). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study is a rare example that focuses on both groups with SCI and AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study highlights the importance of focusing on acceptability and the consumer's perceptions in the development of assistive technology for older adults with cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Answer ALS is a comprehensive multi-omics approach to ALS to ascertain, at a population level, the various clinical-molecular- biochemical subtypes of sporadic ALS. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,046 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Damage to the precuneus through focal brain injury is associated with impaired visually guided reaching, particularly for objects in peripheral vision. 4 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Screening protocols in which cognitive testing is administered subsequent to patient complaint are prone to underdiagnosis. 2 key findings →
Participants: 124 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Performance on the PAL task is highly associated with global cognition. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite challenges, current literature and practice support implementation of telemedicine assessments for patients with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We present a model for digital neural impairment screening and self-assessment, which can evaluate cognitive and motor deficits for patients with symptoms of central nervous system (CNS) disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), or dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings suggest that a significant proportion of older adults with MCR may be at increased risk for malnutrition. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
In this commentary I consider the issues raised in Schneider and Goldberg's review of composite cognitive and functional measures. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Community-dwelling African American elders are twice as likely to develop mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer's disease and related dementias than older white Americans and therefore represent a significant at-risk group in need of early monitoring. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study provides the preliminary evidence that family caregivers can use a touchscreen tablet, software and manual package to identify specific tasks and break these down into steps and that people living with dementia can then follow the prompts to complete the tasks. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an identified prodromal stage of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), often evades detection in the early stages of the condition, when existing diagnostic methods are employed in the clinical setting. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-triggered mortality is significantly higher in older than in younger populations worldwide. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The positive results pave the way for the deployment of the system to a nonsupervised environment, thus representing a potential efficacious and ecological solution to support clinicians in the identification of early signs of cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Due to the lack of pharmacological treatment for dementia, timely detection of subjects at risk can be of seminal importance for preemptive rehabilitation interventions. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The digitalized complex figure test evaluated copying performance quantitatively and further elucidated the patients' ongoing process during copying. 1 key finding →
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events