30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Of 219 completing participants (mean age 73.5 years), the mean SUS score was 82.0 (95% CI: 80.3-83.8), with 84% exceeding the usability threshold (SUS score > 68). 5 key findings →
Participants: 241 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean DDAF score was 40.56 ± 21.18 among digital natives (18-29 years), 34.93 ± 21.88 among the digital transition generation (30-44 years), and 25.17 ± 18.59 among digital immigrants (45-70 years) (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Digital biomarkers are revolutionizing medicine in ways that were unimaginable a few years ago. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
• Lower MMSE scores—even by a single point—were independently associated with a significantly higher risk of developing ADRD. • Individuals with MMSE scores between 27 and 30 should not be viewed as a uniform group. • Further studies are needed to find ways to prevent ADRD in people who are at risk but do not yet show symptoms. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,228 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Benson Complex Figure Test (BCFT) is a neuropsychological tool designed to assess visuospatial construction and visual memory with lower complexity than traditional tests. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,428 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundThe yes-no reversal (YNR) phenomenon consists in a patient saying "yes" when meaning "no", or vice-versa. 3 key findings →
Participants: 267 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The machine learning model predicted MMSE scores with a root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of 2.43 in the BH test set. 4 key findings →
Participants: 945 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MMSE–CDR‐SB residual may help flag less AD‐typical presentations for further etiologic evaluation, but cannot be interpreted as a pathology‐specific marker due to substantial overlap across diagnostic groups. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,981 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eighteen studies identified four core components of multidomain interventions: physical exercise, cognitive training, nutrition, and cardiovascular risk management. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Both CDT formats showed clinically useful psychometric properties and similar pragmatic cut‐offs in older psychiatric outpatients. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Integrating EEG features with plasma biomarkers improves prediction of cognitive function from mild cognitive impairment to moderate dementia, pending external validation. 1 key finding →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Early detection of cognitive impairment in assisted living is hindered by time-intensive tools like MMSE and MoCA. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a three-month period, MT+CST was more effective than CST alone in improving cognitive function but was not cost-effective due to higher initial costs, including setup and equipment. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the AD and non-AD group, OEF showed negative associations with WMH in DGM and positive associations with MoCA in DGM and CGM. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
LPA supported a three-profile solution: (1) lower depressive symptoms with moderate anxiety (33%), (2) severe combined depression and anxiety (18%) and (3) moderately severe depression with severe anxiety (49%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For MCI, MoCA cut-offs were 24 (three methods) and 25 (Youden's J Index). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Univariate analysis revealed that smoking, moderate aerobic exercise and smartphone use were positively correlated with MMSE score. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with conventional activities, GDRT resulted in significantly greater reductions in overall BPSD (r = 0.56, p = .001) and caregiver burden (r = 0.44, p = .011). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
MoCA scores showed significant positive correlations with cognitive-related cerebellar regions, particularly the left Crus I lobule (r = 0.40, p = 0.02) and total Crus I volume (r = 0.36, p = 0.04). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sixty participants (30 intervention, 30 control) were recruited and followed up between March 2024 to September 2025. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four main themes were extracted: (1) Positive experiences, including perceived improvement in cognitive function and mood; (2) Facilitators and barriers to training participation, with facilitators comprising dementia care experience, higher educational attainment, and availability of free time, and barriers including unfamiliarity with computer operation, low awareness of cognitive training, and lengthy training sessions; (3) Training content preferences, reflecting a desire for both relaxed, engaging content and professional guidance; and (4) Practical dilemmas and suggestions, including difficulties in understanding task instructions and complex login procedures, with recommendations for detailed task descriptions and simplified procedures. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although smartphone usage time is not directly associated with ikigai in older adults, it may reflect preserved physical and cognitive abilities required to navigate digital environments. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides quantitative evidence supporting the complementary use of multiple cognitive assessment tools. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 250 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our study delivers ambivalent results for the efficacy of care management for caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 96 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although most Korean older adults declined LST regardless of living arrangement, determinants of LST preferences differed according to household structure. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,787 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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.
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