TBCA has emerged to solve the limitations of administering cognitive assessments face-to-face. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
These findings support the use of the NIHTB-CB in early AD, but also imply that the optimal NIHTB-CB composite score to detect change over time may differ across clinical stages of AD. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 171 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results suggest that a longitudinal digital biomarker differentiates between controls and patients with MCI in a very cost-effective and noninvasive way and hence may be very useful for identifying patients with very early AD who can benefit from clinical trials and new, disease-modifying therapies. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Increased cardiovascular risk as evidenced by FRS was associated with poorer cognitive performance in all cognitive domains among dementia-free middle-aged and older rural Indians. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,609 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive decline is a debilitating manifestation of disease progression in Parkinson's disease. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,200 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The impact of Parkinson's disease (PD) dementia is substantial and has major functional and socioeconomic consequences. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 486 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Huperzine A is a Chinese herb extract used for Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,823 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
66/100
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 87 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The objective of this study was to determine whether treatment with the nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) indomethacin slows cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Longitudinal cognitive testing is essential for developing novel preventive interventions for dementia and Alzheimer's disease; however, the few available tools have significant practice effect and depend on an external evaluator. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 50 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ABSTRACTObjective:To compare the accuracy of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in tracking mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
DNS-br total score and majority of the 11 DNS-br neurocognitive subdomain scores were significantly associated with FDG-PET resilience signature, PIB ratio, cerebral gray matter and white matter volume after adjusting for multiple testing. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 283 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adherence was high (82.2%) and usability favorable. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,815 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was a notable lack of mobile health (mHealth) studies in the literature, with most research focusing on exergame and tablet interventions. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
User involvement was central to the design of the 'Caring For Me and You' package which is currently being evaluated in a three-arm randomised controlled trial. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The BABRI-BHS is an effective and efficient geriatric health care solution that is suitable for community-based dementia risk screening, providing stepwise cognitive assessments and helping older adults acquire tailored interventions and guidance conveniently. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,593 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is known to be an illness which brings forth marked disability amongst the elderly individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study of cognition in Parkinson's disease (PD) traditionally requires exhaustive recruitment strategies. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 11,813 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found that momentary quality of life, reliably assessed by tablet, was associated with comprehensive measures of quality of life and depressive symptoms in people with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 150 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with delirium (with or without pre-existing cognitive impairment) perform poorly on the DelApp compared to patients with dementia and those without cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 61 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Longitudinal declines in DCTclock performance, especially in Information Processing involving speed and executive function, were linked to early Aβ and tau burden in preclinical AD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 219 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The treatment of ischaemic stroke with neuroprotective drugs has been unsuccessful, and whether these compounds can be used to reduce disability after recurrent stroke is unknown. 4 key findings →
Participants: 20,332 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study is based on a population-based cohort of 7,839 subjects over 65 years with 7 years of follow-up. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 7,839 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Higher intake of omega-3 fatty acids (n-3 FAs) is associated with a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and milder forms of cognitive impairment (e.g. cognitive impairment no dementia [CIND]); however, findings from interventional trials are inconsistent. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 934 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although both overt hyper- and hypothyroidism are known to lead to cognitive impairment, data on the association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and cognitive function are conflicting. 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,410 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 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.
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 30,580 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