CCT causes functional and structural changes in extensive brain regions and improves cognitive function in older adults with MCI. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
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.
Our research proposes that reading-derived speech data facilitates the differentiation between cognitively impaired individuals and cognitively intact, age-matched older adults. 4 key findings →
Participants: 59 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Dutch-GERAF study will focus on frail older patients, who are underrepresented in randomised clinical trials. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study suggests that the Aikomi digital application is acceptable for use by persons with dementia and care staff and may have the potential to promote communication and engagement. 2 key findings →
Participants: 15 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
Validation of TapTalk across a range of devices is an important step in the development of smartphone-based telemedicine and was achieved in this study. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This field usability study demonstrated that it is possible to train former family caregivers of people with dementia to use technology to deliver a mental health intervention to current family caregivers of people with dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our engagement with multiple primary and specialty care clinical and operational leaders to adapt the TabCAT-BHA intervention to these primary care clinics has informed the protocol to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness for improving the detection of cognitive impairment, including dementia, in an integrated healthcare system. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CCT can be used to assess cognitive status and detect dementia in patients with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Participants: 116 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The tCVFT-WS exhibited strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79). 5 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The CARS can be used as a standard risk assessment of dementia or in conjunction with a computerized cognitive screening to evaluate a full cognitive profile for detecting early cognitive deficits. 3 key findings →
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
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
Subjects 90 elderly subjects were studied (45 elderly and well persons from the independent living apartments of a continuing care retirement community and 45 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease). 4 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) was developed in the 1980s to assess the level of cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The visual association test (VAT) is a brief learning task based on imagery mnemonics. 4 key findings →
Participants: 83 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The authors report the prevalence of dementia in a community-dwelling Brazilian elderly population and correlate prevalence data with educational and socioeconomic levels. 4 key findings →
Participants: 118 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A literature search was conducted to identify the most frequently affected cognitive domains in PD and to select candidate items for the initial scale. 4 key findings →
Participants: 85 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The study aimed at mapping (i) the distributed electroencephalographic (EEG) sources specific for mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) compared to vascular dementia (VaD) or normal elderly people (Nold) and (ii) the distributed EEG sources sensitive to the mild AD at different stages of severity. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The different distribution of pathologic features in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and Alzheimer disease (AD) predicts a predominant dysexecutive syndrome in FTD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 64 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We administered 3 commonly employed tests of mental status (the Information-Memory-Concentration test [IMC], the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE], and the Dementia Rating Scale [DRS]) to 92 patients with probable dementia of the Alzheimer type. 4 key findings →
Participants: 92 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There were significant ethnic differences in mean MMSE scores among Chinese (26.2), Indians (25.0), and Malays (23.6), but only in noneducated subjects. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,092 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The aim of the study was to investigate the value of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for use by general practitioners (GPs) in a group of elderly patients in whom the GPs are considering a dementia diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The early diagnosis of vascular cognitive impairment has been challenged and executive control function has been suggested to be a rational basis for the diagnosis of vascular dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Accumulating evidence points to the superiority of the MoCA over the MMSE as a cognitive screening tool. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,492 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