27,380 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
Data collection began in March 2024. So far 562 people completed a pre-screening online questionnaire, with 190 passing pre-screening of whom 54% met eligibility criteria. 5 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 64 patients were enrolled in this ongoing real-world study. 5 key findings →
Participants: 64 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The cognitive assessment protocol of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) was designed to evaluate the reliability and validity of cognitive assessment measures that might be valuable additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) or other concise batteries used in antidementia drug trials.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients in the experimental group showed a significant improvement in various neuropsychological domains, and their achievements were stable after 6 months. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results underline the importance of social interaction and a positive mood for a higher QoL. 4 key findings →
Participants: 115 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Trans-diagnostic, domain- or symptom-focused approaches have been heralded as advancing psychiatric research, but relatively few clinical research programmes have been undertaken to leverage their potential. 1 key finding →
Participants: 72 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a considerable delay in the diagnosis of dementia, which may reduce the effectiveness of available treatments. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Careful design and user-testing should be made a priority in the development of computerized assessment interfaces, as well as reevaluating the cognitive assessment process to minimize patient anxiety and discomfort. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, this review corroborates the promising utilization of LLMs to positively impact dementia care by boosting cognitive abilities, enriching social interaction, and supporting caregivers. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the MCI group, age (B = -0.37, p<0.001) and current daily use of computer-based devices (B = 5.85, p<0.001) were associated with the number of correct cancellations of the e-CT. 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
For the reproducibility, identical P-values and slope estimates were found with both digital biomarkers and neuropsychological test measures between the previous and current studies. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Early cognitive changes due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) include difficulties in semantic access and working memory. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Health-monitoring technologies for automatically detecting the early signs of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have become increasingly important. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
The health issues associated with aging not only have a significant impact on the overall well-being of older individuals but also puts a lot of pressure of the healthcare system (3). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief cognitive screening instrument developed by Nasreddine et al. to detect mild cognitive impairment, a high-risk condition for Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
To set a working cutoff score for the referral to diagnostic examination, we evaluated 150 consecutive patients with complaints potentially related to dementia, using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
RAVLT was administered as part of a more extensive neuropsychological battery at baseline evaluation in 116 unselected patients referred by subjective memory complaints (SMC). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A survey was made of 274 non-institutionalized persons aged 70 and over living in Hobart. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →