The majority of participants were women (63%), and large number of them used technological devices such as a smartphone (91%) or computer (81%). 4 key findings →
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.
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is one of the most prevalent neurodegenerative chronic diseases. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MemTrax can effectively detect both clinically diagnosed MCI and AD with better accuracy as compared to the MoCA based on AUCs in a Chinese cohort. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We conclude with an interdependent list of challenges that must be collaboratively addressed before these endpoints are widely adopted. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With the growing popularity of touchscreen cognitive testing in rodents, it is imperative to understand the fundamental effects exposure to this paradigm can have on the animals involved. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Subjective cognitive decline is a symptom that may appear in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Outcomes of this study show the potential use of practical neurofeedback-based training games for brain exercise to enhance cognitive performance in the elderly population. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The VRFCAT-SL appears to provide a useful measure of cognitive functional capacity that is not confounded by PD motor symptoms. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a challenge for medical scientists worldwide, leading to a number of research efforts that focus on biosensor development for AD biomarkers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The One Card Learning Test (OCL80) from the Cogstate Brief Battery-a digital cognitive test used both in-person and remotely in clinical trials and in healthcare contexts to inform health decisions-has shown high sensitivity to changes in memory in early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The data show that dementia research is exponentially developing following the evolution of widespread use of computer science. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Herein, combined with a pervasive smartphone installed with a color recognition app, dual-responsive CDs@Eu/GMP ICPs were designed as a red-to-blue paper-based colorimetric sensor for the point-of-use analysis of cerebral acetylcholinesterase (AChE) upon Cd2+ exposure. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Contrary to expectation, NIH Toolbox crystallized abilities appeared preferentially sensitive to diagnostic group differences. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, these results add to the growing literature that physical exercise can play a significant and lasting role in modifying outcomes in a host of medical conditions, including neurodegenerative diseases. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
40/100
Twenty-five articles were included in this review, with comparable numbers of quantitative (n = 6), qualitative (n = 9), and mixed methods (n = 7) studies, with the remaining articles employing non-empirical designs (n = 3). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The LASSI-BC, a brief computerized version of the LASSI-L is a valid and useful cognitive tool for the detection of aMCI among older adults. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We present an efficient utilization of a machine learning (ML) method concentrating on the 'AI for social good' application. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Approximately 50% of older adults with HIV meet the Frascati diagnostic criteria of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) which can interfere with everyday function such as medication adherence, employment, and driving ability, thus reducing quality of life. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We discuss the practical employment of a machine learning (ML) technique within AI for a social good application. 3 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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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