27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This clinical trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of a 6-week course of daily neuroAD™ therapy. 4 key findings →
Participants: 131 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Prior work has shown that the video component significantly contributes to quality and satisfaction of the visit.3 In addition to the technology itself, patients need to know what to expect for their telehealth appointments. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 5,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between the two versions (paper-based vs. digital) statistically significant correlations were found in all tests, e.g., TMT-A r(48) = 0.63, p < 0.01; TMT-B rs(48) = 0.77, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with UC, CCT increased scores on the MDRS's total, attention, and memory and those on the Mini-Mental State Examination and Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status over the 6-month intervention; TC increased scores on the MDRS's total and conceptualization and those on the Mini-Mental State Examination over the 6-month intervention, while it also increased scores on the MDRS's total and initiation/preservation and those on the Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status and reduced the time to complete the Trail Making Test B over the 12-month study. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
PE-treated patients performed significantly better than placebo for the co-primary endpoints: change from baseline of Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL; P = .03; 52% less decline) with a trend for Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog; P = .06; 66% less decline) scores at month 14. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The SmartPrompt is a smartphone-based reminder application informed by a neuropsychological model of functional disability. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The BHA-CS was accurate at detecting cognitive impairment and exhibited excellent long-term stability. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 340 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive impairment is recognised as an important non-motor symptom in Parkinson's disease (PD) and there is a need for evidence-based non-pharmacological interventions that may prevent or slow cognitive decline in this patient group. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study aimed to investigate the association between a virtual reality (VR) intervention program and cognitive, brain and physical functions in high-risk older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 68 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognivue ® scores ≤ 50 avoid misclassification of impairment, and scores ≥ 75 avoid misclassification of unimpairment. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 92 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
However, there are barriers to their use associated with sociodemographic factors and negative attitudes, as well as inadequate knowledge about technologies. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,172 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We applied our procedure to real-world data which include longitudinal in-home monitored walking speed. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There are few validated fluid biomarkers in frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 469 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Combined rTMS and cognitive training may improve the cognitive status of AD patients, with TMS-induced cortical plasticity at baseline serving as predictor of therapeutic outcome for this intervention, and potential mechanism of action. 2 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The search for early biomarkers of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been central to the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and dementia research community in recent years. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is common in Parkinson's disease (PD) but measures that track cognitive change in PD are lacking. 4 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Previous studies have shown that the diagnostic performance of digital cognitive tests is comparable with that of conventional paper-and-pencil tests. 3 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Web-based cognitive tests have potential for standardized screening in neurodegenerative disorders. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
First, in the normative sample, the total score on the Inbrain CST was significantly affected by age, years of education, and gender. 4 key findings →
Participants: 480 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite the demonstrated benefits of computerized cognitive training for older adults, little is known about the determinants of training behavior. 3 key findings →
Participants: 219 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This work demonstrates a mobile version of VisMET capable of estimating the presence of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Participants: 250 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Eighty-three apps were reviewed (stroke, N=8; migraine, N=25; Alzheimer's disease and dementia, N=8; depression, N=7; anxiety, N=14; apps targeting depression and anxiety, N=21). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Screening protocols in which cognitive testing is administered subsequent to patient complaint are prone to underdiagnosis. 2 key findings →
Participants: 124 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite challenges, current literature and practice support implementation of telemedicine assessments for patients with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →