Digital biomarkers are revolutionizing medicine in ways that were unimaginable a few years ago. 1 key finding →
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.
44/100
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
Neuropsychiatric symptoms seen in Alzheimer's disease (AD) are not simply a consequence of neurodegeneration, but probably result from differential neurotransmitter alterations, which some patients are more at risk of than others. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The increased tendency to fall asleep during the daytime together with increased wakefulness during the night has been demonstrated in patients with advanced Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We selected screening tests that met 2 criteria: 1) administration time of 10 minutes or less in studies including individuals with, and without, dementia; and 2) performance characteristics evaluated in at least 1 community or clinical sample of older adults. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The occurrence of dementia among the elderly has been associated with several, often not modifiable, risk factors. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
44/100
Despite evidence that early identification of dementia is of growing policy and practice significance in the U.K., limited work has been done on evaluating screening measures for use in primary care. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Differences in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) between subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and healthy volunteers were investigated using statistical parametric mapping (SPM99). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Studies of high body mass index (BMI) and cognition in the elderly have shown conflicting results. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The authors report the incidence of dementia in a community-dwelling Brazilian population. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,656 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) has contributed to detecting cognitive impairment, yet few studies have evaluated its accuracy when used by general practitioners (GP) in an actual public-health setting. 3 key findings →
Participants: 317 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lack of insight or impaired awareness of deficits in patients with dementia is a relatively neglected area of study. 4 key findings →
Participants: 37 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
• Lower MMSE scores—even by a single point—were independently associated with a significantly higher risk of developing ADRD. • Individuals with MMSE scores between 27 and 30 should not be viewed as a uniform group. • Further studies are needed to find ways to prevent ADRD in people who are at risk but do not yet show symptoms. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,228 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
44/100
Within one week after dcLVA, 64.3% of patients demonstrated MMSE improvement, with further functional gains observed in continence, emotional regulation, motor coordination, and feeding independence. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The global aging population has led to a significant rise in dementia and cognitive decline, with Alzheimer's disease as the primary cause. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 510 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Out of 796 participants, 793 completed the study. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 796 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Benson Complex Figure Test (BCFT) is a neuropsychological tool designed to assess visuospatial construction and visual memory with lower complexity than traditional tests. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,428 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared to controls, the AD/VaD patient group had a significantly higher WML volume (p < .001), reduced global CBF (p < .001), greater brain atrophy, and worse ADAS-Cog scores (p < .001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
BackgroundThe yes-no reversal (YNR) phenomenon consists in a patient saying "yes" when meaning "no", or vice-versa. 3 key findings →
Participants: 267 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This article reports the development and psychometric properties of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC).
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The IQCODE is a questionnaire which asks an informant about changes in an elderly person's everyday cognitive function.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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