The diagnostic precision of Parkinsonian disorders is not accurate enough. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
CompBased-CAT demonstrated good test–retest reliability, with an ICC of 0.64 among all participants, which increased to 0.74 among participants with MCI over a 2-month period, indicating its potential for monitoring cognitive function through repeated assessments. 3 key findings →
Participants: 80 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The tests qualitatively and statistically associated to a cognitive decline are MMSE, FAB, BSTR, AM, and VSF, of which at least three were considered the most informative also by machine learning. 73% average accuracy was obtained in the diagnosis prediction on three subsets of original and external data. 3 key findings →
Participants: 281 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Until recently, accurate early detection of clinical symptoms associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) has been difficult. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
40/100
As the U.S. population ages, Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) cases are increasing, resulting in long wait times for specialist care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is a degenerative and chronic disorder, increasingly prevalent among older adults, posing significant challenges in providing appropriate care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Probable sarcopenia subjects with dementia were older (68.5(7.8) years old) as compared to those without dementia (66.0(6.0) years old). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
40/100
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disorder, with considerable variability of age-at-onset. 4 key findings →
Participants: 36 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
score 0.8323, although only the AUC was statistically significantly different) and other AI-based models. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To study the use of a dementia screening tool in our clinic cohort of adults with Down syndrome. 1 key finding →
Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
According to the II level neuropsychological evaluation, 4.8 % of MSA patients met criteria for dementia and 53,2 % for MCI. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This case report explores the therapeutic potential of lymphovenous bypass (LVB) surgery performed at the neck in neurodegenerative diseases, specifically Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: case report Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
90%) rated the app favorably, stating it was enjoyable and easy to complete unsupervised. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Most factors of the MoCA-B were significantly different between the two groups, and the PSCN group completed the MoCA-B faster (p 0.05). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants had age mean = 81.7, SD = 4.5, range=75-93; educational attainment mean = 14.6, SD = 4.0, range=7-22, 17.2% < 12; 86.2% were women. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundScreening for cognitive function, using tests such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), is the first step in detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 940 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Various missing codes were used to document reasons for missingness. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Three main categories were created: (1) Impact of observed cognitive decline, (2) Impact of diagnosis on service engagement, and (3) Support and follow-up for family caregivers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This is the first study in Africa using blood-based and retinal imaging biomarkers to examine pathological processes underlying dementia, and systematically map services available for people with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
AD patients had significantly higher AD-RAI (0.91 ± 0.25) and more pronounced hippocampal atrophy (0.36 ± 0.09) compared to MCI and HC (P 0.9 for distinguishing BPSD from non-BPSD patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundAccurate classification of cognitive impairment in population studies is challenging. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Accurate differentiation of Alzheimer's disease (AD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and healthy control (HC) is critical for early diagnosis and intervention of brain disorders. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 81 stroke survivors (mean age 61.9±13.9 years), 72.8% had ischemic stroke, and 27.2% had hemorrhagic stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
37/100
Across CTT studies, findings ranged from two-factor to hierarchical multi-factor models, with a general cognitive factor frequently emerging. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
37/100
ObjectiveThe Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Memory Index Score (MIS) is a supplemental assessment of memory composed of word list delayed free-recall followed by step-down category cued- and multiple-choice cued-recall. 5 key findings →
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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