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
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
To provide effective care, they need to know how patients cope with ADL, in particular, the estimation of risks associated with the cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
Neuroscience is developing rapidly by providing a variety of modern tools for analyzing the functional interactions of the brain and detection of pathological deviations due to neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
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 investigated whether an external memory aid (i.e., Google Calendar) would alleviate prospective memory compromise in a patient with mild Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Design: case report Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The pathogenesis of incipient Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been resistant to analysis because of the complexity of AD and the overlap of its early-stage markers with normal aging. 3 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Because even the very mildly demented brains showed substantial pathological change, emphasis was placed on examining the nondemented cases for the earliest changes that could be associated with Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive testing is an essential part of clinical diagnostics and clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Digital biomarkers are of growing interest in the field of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) research. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With the global population rapidly aging, dementia has emerged as a major public health concern. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia poses a significant global health problem, necessitating early detection for effective intervention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We comment on the importance of the novel tablet-based screening tool for cognitive decline recently studied in Nigeria by Ogbuagu et al. TabCAT-BHA was administered on an iPad in urban and rural settings and was found to be a sensitive and culturally appropriate tool for assessing cognitive function and impairment. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As our knowledge about the biology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) expands and we recognize the significance of early intervention for effective treatment, there is a shift in focus toward detecting the disease at an early stage. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
In this commentary I consider the issues raised in Schneider and Goldberg's review of composite cognitive and functional measures. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The DCR scaled well with FAQ scores, and ML classifiers trained on multimodal DCR features demonstrated strong performance in predicting functional impairment on a held-out test set. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The advent of disease-modifying treatments and risk-reduction strategies in the clinic have increased the demand for biomarkers for early disease detection, prediction of clinical course of disease, individual risk prediction and monitoring of treatment effects. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two major themes were identified: (1) facilitating factors and (2) difficulties related to use. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 2nd SAMS score were higher than the 1st SAMS score in some participants, on the other hand, the intraclass correlation coefficient was good. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Community-dwelling African American elders are twice as likely to develop mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer's disease and related dementias than older white Americans and therefore represent a significant at-risk group in need of early monitoring. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This paper introduces a new deep learning-assisted offline smartphone platform for early AD screening, offering rapid disease detection in low-resource areas. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid beta 1-40 (Aβ 1-40) is one of the most abundant substances in the body with the capacity to form insoluble aggregates and is a universal biomarker for the prediction of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, we developed a newly designed μPAD for CL immunoassays, leveraging smartphone-based image capture, valve-regulated reaction process, and app-driven result analysis to enable fully automated detection. 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