30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The NeuroTrax Mindstreams computerized cognitive assessment system was designed for widespread clinical and research use in detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
HIV dementia has an annual incidence of 7% after AIDS development and eventually affects 20% of all HIV-infected persons. 4 key findings →
Participants: 34 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The diagnosis of dementia is based on the presence of memory deficits and decline of other cognitive functions. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this study we investigated impaired awareness of cognitive deficits in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease is the most common dementia in the elderly, and the potential of peripheral biochemical markers as complementary tools in the neuropsychiatric evaluation of these patients has claimed further attention. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We surveyed the medical records of outpatients meeting the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria for probable DAT who were able to complete the Cognitive Difficulties Scale (CDS) and had a close informant relative (IR) who could complete the family form of the same questionnaire. 4 key findings →
Participants: 88 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Previously, we reported that morning bright light therapy improved sleep time and cognitive function in Alzheimer type of dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Knowledge of cognitive performance earlier in life is essential in order to characterize precisely the extent to which these abilities have declined when an individual is diagnosed as having a dementing illness. 4 key findings →
Participants: 368 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The purpose of this study was to explore the structure of the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) for informal caregivers of patients suffering from AD or related disorders, and to examine the relations of the dimensions found with functional disabilities and other patient health indicators. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We investigated possible abnormalities in the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macula lutea of patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and tested for any correlation with the severity of dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 72 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Type 2 diabetes is associated with cognitive dysfunction and increases the risk of dementia in the elderly. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a frequently observed, irreversible brain function disorder among elderly individuals. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In addition, we examined whether anosognosia had an impact on the agreement between patient and informant ratings of QoL and whether anosognosia, dementia severity, depression and behavioural symptoms were significantly correlated to QoL in early AD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 48 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The NUCOG was undertaken with the MMSE on a total of 347 individuals, with 82 subjects in the control group and 265 in the patient group. 4 key findings →
Participants: 65 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study aimed to develop a novel classification model using wearable two-channel electroencephalography (EEG) data to differentiate between patients with dementia and normal controls (NCs). 2 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
< 0.001) for both measures. When distinguishing NC from MCI/DM, the CIST outperformed the K-MMSE, demonstrating a higher AUC (0.869 vs. 0.842) and F1-score (0.697 vs. 0.409). 3 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The machine learning model predicted MMSE scores with a root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of 2.43 in the BH test set. 4 key findings →
Participants: 945 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Long-term PM exposure, particularly PM 10 , may contribute to increased AD/ADRD susceptibility, potentially through inflammation-related pathways. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The REMINDER program contributes to dementia prevention research by combining cognitive, lifestyle, and psychosocial strategies within a group-based format, aiming to foster long-term adherence to brain-protective behaviors. 4 key findings →
Participants: 270 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MMSE–CDR‐SB residual may help flag less AD‐typical presentations for further etiologic evaluation, but cannot be interpreted as a pathology‐specific marker due to substantial overlap across diagnostic groups. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,981 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CogState and standard neuropsychological task scores were significantly lower for dementia participants than that of the nondementia groups (P < .05), with a single CogState test distinguishing control from MCI participants, but minimal differentiation existing between dementias using the CogState. 2 key findings →
Participants: 37 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It is not known whether computerized cognitive assessments, like the CogState battery, are sensitive to preclinical cognitive changes or pathology in people at risk for Alzheimer's disease(AD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 71 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In established dementia, administration of the CogState tasks appears sensitive to cognitive impairment in dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 23 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Excellent reliability was observed among the 6 C3-PAD alternate versions (Cronbach alpha coefficient=0.93). 5 key findings →
Participants: 49 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia poses a growing challenge for health services but remains stigmatized and under-recognized. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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 30,580 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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