The Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia is introduced.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
When a test is based on an observed variable that lies on a continuous or graded scale, an assessment of the overall value of the test can be made through the use of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The OCS-Plus represents a major methodological advance in dementia studies in LMICs, and enhances understanding of cognitive aging. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Decades of research has established a shift from an "eveningness" preference to a "morningness" preference with increasing age. 4 key findings →
Participants: 169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Digital assessments are effective at identifying at-risk individuals, supporting their utility as low-burden tools for early AD detection and monitoring. 2 key findings →
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
We investigated whether a validated computerized cognitive test, the Computerized Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment (CAMCI), could be independently completed by older primary care patients. 1 key finding →
Participants: 130 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
33 Chinese- and 117 English-speaking older adults who received a diagnosis of normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment at consensus were included in the data analysis. 5 key findings →
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
Computerized cognitive assessment tools may facilitate early identification of dementia in the primary care setting. 1 key finding →
Participants: 259 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
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
48/100
This case series elucidates pathological signs for diagnosis in two patients with Dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The number (%) of participants with frailty were 51 (9.1). 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional 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
By incorporating sex, place of residence, age, and years of education as covariates, the TabCAT-BHA demonstrated greater accuracy in detecting cognitive impairment (AUC = 75.3%) compared to the MMSE (AUC = 66.4%) and RUDAS (AUC = 71.4%). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results show evidence for increased performance in the assessment of general cognitive functioning in both EGs (p ≤ 0.05). 5 key findings →
Participants: 84 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Average adherence was 41%. Despite this, remote measures demonstrated excellent reliability (ICCs > 0.90 after 10 sessions) and strong construct validity, with tasks loading onto memory, attention, and executive function domains. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More women than men were in the patient group (χ 2 1 =17.2, P<.001) and in the caregiver group (χ 2 1 =22.2, P<.001). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patterns of cognitive impairment may be detected in cases of AD 2 years before formal clinical diagnosis, although high education level prolongs competence, principally on verbal tasks. 3 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to record brain activation during cognitive testing in older individuals (88±6yo; N = 19) living in residential care communities. 3 key findings →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The lived experience of people living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment emphasises the central role of smart devices in their lives, and the need for research to move beyond rehearsal of what is needed to co-production and evaluation of smart technology-based educational interventions. 1 key finding →
Participants: 29 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 report suggests that GSCT is a viable cognitive screening instrument for both MCI and dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 106 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