The development of a cost-effective digital biomarker for detecting dementia is highly needed. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia worldwide, and the development of early screening methods can address its significant health and social consequences. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Only FCSRT-IR LTR rates sufficiently differentiated SCD from HC (AUC of 0.701; 95% CI 0.537-0.865). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 1,217; 65.0 years) showed earlier initial MMSE scores (by 6.1 years, 95% CI = 5.2-7.0), earlier dementia diagnoses (by 2.3 years, 95% CI = 0.9-3.7) but lower dementia risk (adjusted HR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.69-0.95). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings indicate that the severity of cognitive impairment was significantly associated with an increased risk of falls in patients with dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
anxiety and depression symptoms (HADS), functional autonomy (DAD-6), global cognition (MoCA), and quality of life (WHOQOL). 5 key findings →
Participants: 165 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study aimed to develop a conversion table for the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) to the Japanese version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-J) to facilitate prediction of the MMSE-J score from the MoCA-J score. 1 key finding →
Participants: 121 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The observation group had significantly higher blood uric acid levels than the control group (P<0.05). 5 key findings →
Participants: 84 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings may contribute to the growing body of knowledge on the vascular contributions to cognitive function and may help identify potential biomarkers for the early detection and intervention of AD. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a cohort of 75 patients who completed Moneta's program (average age 73 ± 10, average MoCA score 20 ± 5), 59% had MCI and 33% had dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
38/100
It was found that individuals with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have poorer balance and a higher risk of falls compared to healthy individuals. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean hippocampal volumes were significantly smaller in the DEM group compared to the MCI and healthy groups (P <0.0001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No significant differences were found between the in-person and remote groups in terms of age, education, or gender. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DLB patients had a higher prevalence of VH than AD patients (p < 0.01). 5 key findings →
Participants: 154 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multivariate correlation analysis, which was adjusted for age, sex, and education level, revealed a significant correlation between the two tests in orientation, memory, and attention. 5 key findings →
Participants: 85 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found significant main effects between GFAP groups and age, diagnosis of AD, diagnosis of VaD, MoCA, sex, CRP and BMI. 5 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MoCA Solo is emerging as a reliable and efficient tool for assessing cognitive impairment in older adults. 3 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Both V3 width and plasma Hcy concentration were negatively correlated with MoCA scores in PD (r=-0.358, P<0.001; r=-0.187, P=0.013, respectively). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After 5 years, 666 (86.8%) individuals were followed up. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
PFT is longer at CDR-SB ≤ 2.0 (1-2 years) and shorter at CDR-SB ≥ 5 (≤ 0.33) in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort. 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
36/100
No statistically significant differences emerged between SDW and GW groups regarding baseline demographics, cognitive function, ADL, or neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The four- and seven-class clustering solutions achieved high variance overlap with published microstate templates. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A higher GPF was associated with better cognitive function in institutionalized older adults with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Pathophysiological differences separating small vessel disease (SVD) from Alzheimer's disease (AD) may alter treatment approach. 3 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were weak or no correlations between the KICA-Cog and other cognitive assessment tools. 5 key findings →
Participants: 49 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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