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
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
Overall, results indicated that while participants across all three intervention groups reported a generally positive experience with the targeted dementia risk reduction tools, participants using the information-based website provided a more favorable evaluation across a range of areas than participants using the mobile phone app. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Initial average waiting times for AD specialist appointments would be around 21 months in 2023 and remain around 55 months through 2042, as demand would continue to outstrip supply throughout the 20-year model horizon. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
45/100
The Mindstreams battery for moderate impairment differentiates among varying degrees of cognitive impairment in older adults, providing detailed and distinct cognitive profiles. 3 key findings →
Participants: 170 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Remote, digital cognitive testing on an individual's own device provides the opportunity to deploy previously understudied but promising cognitive paradigms in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A higher NSFU was positively associated with increased general and partial subdomain cognitive functions. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The tablet-based MCI detection system quantitatively assesses hand motor function in older adults and further elucidates the cognitive and behavioral decline phenomenon in patients with MCI. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings suggest that a significant proportion of older adults with MCR may be at increased risk for malnutrition. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study is aimed at assessing the impact of seizure frequency on the cognitive performance of epileptic adult patients in a rural community in South Eastern Nigeria. 5 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is a scalable, well-tolerated intervention that has promise for slowing cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The positive user experience and high acceptance of participants indicate that tablet-based cognitive testing in GP settings can be highly feasible and can thus lead to indicated specialist referrals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The implementation of digital cognitive assessment tools and a blood biomarker test was associated with an increase in healthcare professionals' confidence in diagnosing and managing patients with cognitive impairment in primary care and non-specialty settings. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The translation process during test development took linguistic and cultural aspects into account. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD), as the most common form of dementia and leading cause for disability and death in old age, represents a major burden to healthcare systems worldwide. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings highlight that deep learning and DA techniques can aid in the development of adherence support systems for computerized cognitive training, as well as for other interventions aimed at improving health, cognition, and well-being. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
People with dementia can have positive experiences with smartwatches. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Early-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains difficult to assess using conventional linguistic or cognitive assessments, which often overlook subtle and individualized disruptions in speech. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) represents a significant global health issue, affecting over 55 million individuals worldwide, with a progressive impact on cognitive and functional abilities. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lifestyles aimed at reducing dementia risk typically combine physical and cognitive training, nutritional adaptations, and, potentially, an augmentation in social interactions. 5 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.
1,042 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