Subclinical cognitive impairment was found to not constitute a unitary phenomenon and heterogeneous subgroups could be differentiated. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
People with neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease and dementia are known to have difficulties in language and communication. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This paper considers the suitability of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog) as the gold standard in registration trials of treatments for Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Worse pain scores and executive function scores were associated with worse physical function in older adults with painful knee OA. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The clock-drawing test meets defined criteria for a cognitive screening instrument. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We tested the hypothesis that synaptic defects in the hippocampus of individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) correlate with the severity of cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is little or no neuronal loss in aging or preclinical AD but substantial loss in very mild AD. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
On average, the accuracy of our step length estimation was about 98%. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
New technologies have considerable potential to support people with semantic dementia-a form of progressive aphasia-in their everyday lives, but evidence is still sparse. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MoCA is suited for the cognitive screening of patients with small vessel disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The online CFT was shown to be suitable for self-administration in online format (with a mouse response mode) for this midlife age group. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Decreased ALP levels predicted better cognition following bariatric surgery, suggesting improved liver function as a possible mechanism of post-operative cognitive benefits. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Given the high prevalence of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND), we examined the performance of a novel computerized cognitive assessment device (NCAD) for the evaluation of neurocognitive impairment in the setting of HIV. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a limited choice of psychometric tests for Portuguese speaking people which have been evaluated in well defined groups. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-seven patients with Alzheimer-type dementia (ATD) were treated with bright light therapy in the morning for four consecutive weeks. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Early and accurate diagnosis of dementia is essential to improving patient outcomes and reducing societal burden. 1 key finding →
Participants: 164 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For MCI, MoCA cut-offs were 24 (three methods) and 25 (Youden's J Index). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our studies showed that DC and DRs in VD and AD groups were significantly lower than those in controls, while AC values were significantly higher. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The observation group had significantly lower Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) scores than the control group (both P<0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DNA methylation, mRNA and protein levels, and cognitive performance using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clock Drawing Test (CDT). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study (RCT) investigated the impact of Expressive Therapies Continuum (ETC)-based art therapy on cognitive function and quality of life among older adults with dementia living in a complex care setting. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
DLB is characterized by DMN and visual network dysfunction, disrupted local neural activity, and impaired global network integration. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
34/100
The median age of the participants was 69 years, with a median MMSE score of 16. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Univariate analysis revealed that smoking, moderate aerobic exercise and smartphone use were positively correlated with MMSE score. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is widely used in cognitive screening, including in primary care settings. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.
1,038 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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 →