The final multivariable model showed good accuracy in identifying cognitively impaired individuals (c = 0·77). 4 key findings →
Participants: 912 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.
Our study will contribute to the development of self-care interventions that utilize behavioral data and machine learning techniques to provide automated analyses of the functional decline of older adults who are at risk for dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 130 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Differences in total score, cognitive domain scores, and subtest scores of the SCST among the 3 groups of participants diagnosed using CERAD-K confirm the clinical utility of the SCST for cognitive assessment. 4 key findings →
Participants: 296 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
T2D-related brain dysfunction in mid-life manifests as attentional loss accompanied by evidence of subtle neurodegeneration and global reduction in cerebral metabolism, in the absence of overt cerebrovascular disease. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Analysis showed strong correlation between (1) XpressO memory tasks scores and the MoCA Memory Index Score (p-values < 0.001), and between (2) XpressO sub-test scores and MoCA total score (p-values < 0.005). 5 key findings →
Participants: 118 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 406 FHS (Framingham Heart Study) and 59 BHS (Bogalusa Heart Study) participants with traditional neuropsychological tests and digital assessments using the Defense Automated Neurocognitive Assessment (DANA) smartphone protocol were included. 5 key findings →
Participants: 406 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The SCST total score, cognitive domain scores (attention, language, visuospatial function, memory, executive function), and most of the subtest scores decreased significantly in the order of SCD, MCI and dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 254 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hypertension is associated with impaired cognition, and when combined with MCI, it may lead to a poor prognosis. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We also sought to clarify intrinsic and extrinsic factors associated with mobility phenotypes for consideration in future studies. 5 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 6419 veterans screened (mean [SD] age, 67.6 [15.9] years; 716 female [11.2%]; 1740 Black or African American [27.1%]; 202 Hispanic or Latino [3.1%]; 4125 White [64.3%]), 2740 (42.7%) reported 1 or more digital needs. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
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
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
Beynex categorization scores showed a moderate agreement with MoCA ratings (weighted Cohen's Kappa = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.38-0.60). 4 key findings →
Participants: 91 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ANOVA and Bayesian t-test found no significant differences between the task when it was remotely self-administered by participants at home compared to when it was taken under controlled lab conditions. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive impairments are a prevalent consequence of acquired brain injury, dementia, and age-related cognitive decline, hampering individuals' daily functioning and independence, with significant societal and economic implications. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We present the case of a 62-year-old woman with probable behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) with cognitive/language deficits who demonstrated improved performance on cognitive/language testing and in functional tasks following long-term, home-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) coupled with computerized cognitive training (CCT). 2 key findings →
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
Contextual memory, the ability to remember spatial or temporal features related to an event, is affected in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The speech assessment was feasible, indicated by 91.6% adherence and usability scores of 86.0 ± 9.9. 4 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