Four-week changes in NPI-Q total scores did not differ significantly between the treatment and placebo groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
These results suggest that CogEvo, a computerized cognitive assessment tool, is useful for evaluating early-stage cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 78 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Preliminary results suggest that hospice enrolment might be influenced by the facility or region of this particular country. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Cronbach's alpha of MoCA-J as an index of internal consistency was 0.74. 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study aimed to examine the validity and item-response characteristics of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), which is used for assessing cognitive function, in Japanese older adults. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,971 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
According to caregivers, residents with dementia experienced fewer other physical symptoms (e.g. nausea) than residents without dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multiple factors including BPSD, impaired life function and geriatric syndrome were cognitive stage-dependently associated with CB. 4 key findings →
Participants: 117 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Tirzepatide could control postprandial hyperglycemia even in cases with diminished β-cell function. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aim of this study was to assess chewing ability using color-changeable chewing gum and to show the association between chewing ability and geriatric functions, as well as dietary status in the community-dwelling elderly. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The risk of dementia increases steadily with the number of medications used and age in older people in Taiwan. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Test-retest reliability data of the Arabic MoCA were collected approximately 35.0 +/- 17.6 days apart. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Compared with France, where the percentage of the elderly population has increased just twofold in the past 100 years, Japanese society is aging at an unprecedented rate. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
β-Amyloid (Aβ) oligomers may play an important role in the early pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease: cognitive impairment caused by synaptic dysfunction. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In older patients, typical clinical symptoms and blood test changes were often absent; however, CT always contained typical findings of COVID-19, suggesting that CT may be a useful diagnostic tool. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The deposition of amyloid β-protein (Aβ) in the brain is an invariant feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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