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
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
CI individuals show reduced social activity, especially those activities that are related to repeated and unique behavior, as measured by the smartphone app Behapp. 4 key findings →
Participants: 209 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Further studies will allow for greater understanding and development of this research format. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, the results suggest that ARC is reliable and valid and represents a feasible tool for assessing cognitive changes associated with the earliest stages of AD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found patient and care partner input to be critical throughout the development process for early identification of design and usability issues and for identifying solutions not previously considered by our research team. 2 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BrainCheck was able to distinguish between diagnoses of dementia, MCI, and NC, providing a potentially reliable tool for early detection of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Participants: 99 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results suggest that the ki:e SB-C is an objective, scalable, and reliable indicator of cognitive decline, fit for purpose as a remote assessment in clinical early dementia trials. 3 key findings →
Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MDT-OS and ORR-LDR were weakly-to-moderately correlated with the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC5) (r = 0.3-0.44, p < .001) and with several other measures of episodic memory, processing speed, and executive function. 5 key findings →
Participants: 172 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This is the first study to investigate the effect of MAKSCog, an individualised CCT, specifically developed for people with different subtypes of MCI. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 103 participants completed all investigations and were included in the analysis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 103 Evidence: low
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
The GP referral and ICA outcome are compared with the specialist diagnosis obtained at the memory clinic. 3 key findings →
Participants: 86 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
Digital screening tests such as M-CogScore are desirable to aid in rapid and remote clinical cognitive evaluations. 5 key findings →
Participants: 72 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We will record overall usability using questionnaires (eg, Post-Study System Usability and ISONORM 9241/10), log events, and interviews. 2 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Reduced speed and reduced smoothness in speed and pressure were observed particularly in the LBD group, while increased pauses and total durations were observed in both the AD and LBD groups. 3 key findings →
Participants: 47 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In MCI subjects, the NCPT composite is significantly correlated with both a composite measure of established tests (r = 0.78, p < 0.0001) as well as with the ADAS-Cog (r = -0.55, p < 0.0001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Mobile-health applications can be used to deliver timely and personalized health information to family and friends of chronically ill adults living in the community. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The median (interquartile range) test time for MARC was 401 (350-453) s. Total MARC scores were significantly worse in the MCI and ADD groups than in the NDC group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). 5 key findings →
Participants: 64 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More than 50 million people worldwide live with a dementia, and most are cared for by family members. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive testing data are essential to the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and computerized cognitive testing, such as the Cogstate Brief Battery, has proven helpful in efficiently identifying harbingers of dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 257 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We demonstrated its effectiveness over state-of-the-art methods on a real-world data set of 9363 days collected from 15 participant households by the UK Dementia Research Institute between August 2019 and July 2021. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine participants, at two-time points. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Low SES older adults may benefit from lifestyle interventions that aim to improve self-efficacy levels by (remote) human support. 4 key findings →
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 30,980 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