A total of 57 articles were included in the review, including 3182 participants. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,182 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Seventy-four participants completed the study. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Over six months, the intervention group showed a stable global cognitive function score (Mini Mental Status Examination), whereas the control group showed a cognitive decline (ANCOVA-interaction: F1, 14 = 5.083, p = .041; controlled for disease duration and education). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
AD was characterized by longer time in bed, more bed exits, less snoring, and changes in estimated sleep states. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 13,588 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Correlations between in-person and T-COG scores were of moderate to large magnitude (Pearson r: 0.57 to 0.80, intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.52 to 0.79). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After the clinical implementation of amyloid-β-targeting therapies for people with cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD), there is an urgent need to efficiently identify this patient population in primary care. 4 key findings →
Participants: 223 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The data of 1734 participants (1158 with AD, 105 with DLB, 46 with VaD, and 425 with CN) were analyzed. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,734 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Characterizing subtle cognitive changes in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) is difficult using traditional neuropsychological assessments. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our analysis yielded three major a marked acceleration in research activity since 2020, a convergence of clinical needs with technological advancements, and the inherently interdisciplinary nature of this field. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were 719 respondents (276 people with dementia, 443 carers). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 276 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The interventions proved effective in improving executive functions. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 112 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 325 participants enrolled and received study drug. 5 key findings →
Participants: 320 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No adverse events occurred over the study period. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Personalized repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the precuneus (PC) is emerging as a new non-invasive therapeutic approach in treating Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant differences in AD biomarkers were observed among different groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 238 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A decreasing linear trend was observed between higher levels of curry consumption and cognitive decline (p = 0.037). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,920 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MEDAS-R was positively associated with better MMSE performance (p = 0.043) and showed a borderline association with the MoCA (p = 0.051), but not with the ACE-R score (p = 0.356). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Digital cognitive testing using online platforms has emerged as a potentially transformative tool in clinical neuroscience. 3 key findings →
Participants: 325 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundEarly diagnosis of early-onset dementia (EOD) is often challenging. 1 key finding →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
for interaction <0.05). We identified a worse cognitive function and an increased mortality risk in dementia patients with RA compared with non-RA. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Living with another adult and higher MMSE scores were significantly associated with later access to home help services (p < 0.001) and care facilities (p < 0.001). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,592 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Anosognosia, the lack of awareness of memory decline, and Neuropsychiatric Symptoms (NPS) are prevalent and debilitating symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 53 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 158 participants were included, with an average age of 75.2 years (SD 7.65). 60.8% (n=96) of patients had AD, and 39.2% (n=62) had LBD. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
54/100
BackgroundCognitive impairment significantly impacts the quality of life in patients with neurodegenerative disorders, including Huntington's disease (HD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and Alzheimer's disease (AD).ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the utility of MemTrax, a contemporary digital continuous recognition task platform originally developed for AD, as an effective tool for revealing cognitive and clinical motor impairments in HD and PD populations as aligned with respective disease staging. 2 key findings →
Participants: 135 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Significant hazard ratios (HRs) for dementia incidence were found using the MMSE cutoff between 23 and 24 point (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.13-3.27) and the J-Cog cutoff between 43 and 44 points (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.50-3.93). 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →