The mean age of the cohort was 77.4 ± 6.8 years, with 62% males and nearly equal urban–rural distribution. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
BackgroundDementia is one of the most prevalent conditions among older adults. 3 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The accuracy of α-synuclein-SAA for DLB was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77% to 98%) in CSF, 85% (95% CI: 75% to 98%) in skin, 58% (95% CI: 47% to 69%) in olfactory mucosa, and 59% (95% CI: 51% to 66%) in urine. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Health disparities in dementia care are amplified among aging multilingual communities relative to their monolingual English-speaking counterparts, as social determinants of health and significant gaps in culturally responsive practice can contribute to misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, and delays in intervention. 2 key findings →
Design: case report Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The MoCA shows superior sensitivity for MCI detection compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), with strengths in brevity, multidomain coverage, and accessibility. 5 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
VARABOM.D scores showed significant positive associations with established cognitive assessments. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This ultra-brief questionnaire enables rapid screening for cognitive impairment (in <1 min) by family members or as part of community geriatric assessments. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundDespite dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) being the second most common form of neurodegenerative dementia, more than 80% of DLB cases are initially misdiagnosed. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
With one exception, the participants scored highest in their self-identified strongest language. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
LUMEN demonstrated strong performance in distinguishing dementia from normal cognition (AUROC=0.89) but moderate subtype differentiation (AUROC=0.66). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia, a progressive neurodegenerative disorder affecting memory, cognition, and behaviour, poses a major global health challenge in aging populations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent studies highlight the significance of plasma phosphorylated tau proteins, neurofilament light chain, and amyloid-beta ratios as reliable biomarkers. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Parameters such as clinical status, GCA scale, MTA scale, Fazekas scale, strategic infarction, Koedam score, stroke, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease do not have significant correlations with MoCA-INA scores. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There was a significant correlation in MoCA and FLCI-2 measures but no significant correlation between the language measures (CIUs, FLCI-2, or word count). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Researchers tested whether a tablet-based cognitive test (TabCAT) could substitute for traditional paper-and-pencil memory tests in people with early-onset Alzheimer's. Scores on the tablet's attention/executive tasks correlated strongly (above 0.7) with standard tests like the MMSE and MoCA, and one subtest could distinguish people with amyloid plaques from those without with good accuracy (AUC 0.82). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 475 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Dementia Trials Accelerator (DTA) is a UK-wide programme designed to improve the feasibility, efficiency, and inclusiveness of recruitment into clinical trials of dementia and related brain-health conditions. 5 key findings →
Participants: 10,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Using the ADNI dataset, we found that the model realigned patients according to their clinical diagnoses. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early identification of cognitive impairment remains challenging in settings where comprehensive cognitive and clinical assessments are not available. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is projected to experience the fastest growth in dementia burden globally, yet population-based data on cognitive aging remain scarce. 1 key finding →
Participants: 3,027 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
INTRODUCTIONIndividuals with Alzheimers disease (AD) exhibit substantial heterogeneity in the severity of vascular changes and neurodegeneration, making the identification of biologically meaningful subtypes across the AD spectrum critical for improving prognosis and tailoring interventions. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,396 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings show that model-based, adaptive assessments can support high-frequency, remote detection and scalable longitudinal monitoring of early memory decline, providing a new way to assess memory decline trajectories in healthy aging and dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 24 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For TabCAT tests, there were no notable floor or ceiling effects, and test scores were associated with age and education as expected. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 563 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ObjectiveTo investigate whether a lifetime history of DSM-5 AUD and correlated indices of alcohol consumption are associated with accelerated age-related cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,421 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MTD showed excellent discrimination of CU versus MCI/DEM (AUC=.89; 95% CI=.87-.92), and discriminability remained high for CU versus MCI (AUC=.88; 95% CI=.85-.92). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,224 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 →