27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Between March 1, 2016, and March 12, 2020, 383 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 383 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Profiles of high risk for future dementia are well understood and are likely to concern mostly those in low-income and middle-income countries and people at greater disadvantage in high-income countries. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,400 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Levels of apathy decreased slightly in both groups (mean decrease in AES-I of .61 points, 95% CI -3.54, 2.33 for TBI and .36 points, 95% CI -3.27, 2.55 for CAS). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 162 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use of ecologically oriented approaches with virtual reality (VR) depicting instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) is a promising approach for interventions on acquired brain injuries. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants in the experimental group had better overall subjective memory, subjective retrospective memory and global quality of life, with fewer depressive symptoms than those in the control group 3 months following the program. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Bilingualism has been linked to improved executive function and delayed onset of dementia, but it is unknown whether similar benefits can be obtained later in life through deliberate intervention. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 76 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study aimed to investigate the relationship between mobile phone use and cognitive impairment using the data of the Prevention and Intervention on Neurodegenerative Disease for Elderly in China (PINDEC) survey. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 21,732 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aerobic exercise has shown inconsistent cognitive effects in older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 96 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this single-center observational study, we included all individuals who visited the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and had a clinical diagnosis of subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or probable AD dementia and were A+. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 520 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Conventional neuropsychological assessments for Alzheimer's disease are burdensome and inaccurate at detecting mild cognitive impairment and predicting Alzheimer's disease risk. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 525 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results indicate that declines in connected speech may be related to preclinical AD. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings provide support for both the feasibility and validity of C3 and computerized cognitive outcomes more generally in AD secondary prevention trials. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,486 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Access to affordable, objective and scalable biomarkers of brain function is needed to transform the healthcare burden of neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disease. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neurofilament light chain (NfL) and α-synuclein oligomeric seeds (α-syn-s) are promising biomarkers for patients with parkinsonism. 4 key findings →
Participants: 153 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BRANCH reliably captures meaningful cognitive information remotely, suggesting promise as a digital cognitive marker sensitive early in the AD trajectory. 2 key findings →
Participants: 234 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The BHA has excellent performance characteristics in detecting cognitive impairment including dementia and MCI in a Hispanic population in Cuba and outperformed the MoCA. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 146 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recently, there has been growing interest in the glymphatic system (the functional waste clearance pathway for the central nervous system and its role in flushing solutes (such as amyloid ß and tau), metabolic, and other cellular waste products in the brain. 4 key findings →
Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our study is well placed to evaluate the clinical utility of RMT assessments. 3 key findings →
Participants: 220 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The ICA demonstrated convergent validity with MoCA (Pearson r=0.58, p<0.0001) and ACE (r=0.62, p<0.0001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 230 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Variability in step velocity and cadence had the highest predictive utility in identifying individuals with mild AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Detecting early signs of cognitive decline is crucial for early detection and treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although there were no significant changes in caregiver burden, we were encouraged by the increased emotional well-being of our participants following the completion of our program. 4 key findings →
Participants: 21 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both DELPHI analysis of network function and DTI analysis detected a significant decrease in connectivity, excitability, and WM integrity in the SCD group compared to healthy control (HC) subjects; a significant decrease was also noted for aMCI and Dementia groups compared to HC. 3 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Decades of research has established a shift from an "eveningness" preference to a "morningness" preference with increasing age. 4 key findings →
Participants: 169 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 →