27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This systematic review suggests that CCT interventions could improve global cognitive function in patients with MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,059 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings show that the first months of the outbreak did not significantly impact the cognition, quality of life, perceived health status, and depression of our study population when making comparisons with baseline assessments prior to the outbreak. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The effects were not statistically significant on other outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two reviewers independently screened the search results and reference lists of the identified papers and related reviews. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study indicates that the cognitive and behavioral efficacies of MeMo, a Web-based training app, can be observed only with regular use of the app. 4 key findings →
Participants: 46 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, quantitative results were inconclusive owing to small sample size. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 25 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, the results of recent studies using semi-immersive virtual reality (VR)-assisted cognitive training are inconsistent. 5 key findings →
Participants: 23 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although mixed, the results indicate a positive response for the use of internet-based interventions by caregivers. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This review included 24 studies involving 2979 participants (1717 with dysphagia and 1262 controls). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Baseline assessments were conducted on 128 participants. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 125 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite the promise of a multitude of sensors and devices that can be applied, there are no agreed-upon standards for digital biomarkers, nor are there comprehensive evidence-based results for which digital biomarkers may be demonstrated to be most effective. 3 key findings →
Participants: 279 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After removal of duplicates, our initial search returned 3955 records. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite the increasing approval of antiamyloid antibodies for Alzheimer disease (AD), their clinical relevance and risk-benefit profile remain uncertain. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,236 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, there are barriers to their use associated with sociodemographic factors and negative attitudes, as well as inadequate knowledge about technologies. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,172 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study included 54 articles, comprising 14,446 participants from 10 countries. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 54 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics and in outcome variables (HHI, GSES, and SF-12v2 mental component score and physical component score) between users and nonusers. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 101 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of the included studies were summarized using a narrative synthesis or meta-analysis, as appropriate. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This simple and feasible cognitive impairment prediction model could identify community-dwelling elderly people at the greatest 3-year risk for cognitive impairment, which could help community nurses in the early identification of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intervention revealed no substantial between-group differences in caregiver burden (β=-3.80, 95% CI -11.25 to 3.65, P=.32), quality of life (β=-1.55, 95% CI -6.59 to 3.49, P=.55), or social support (β=0.85, 95% CI -2.86 to 4.56, P=.65). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The inclusion criteria for peer-reviewed English publications from March 2020 to August 2022 consisted of studies related to telehealth services for people living with dementia and their family caregivers and studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the AI-related research conducted in the field of health care, which helps researchers, policy makers, and practitioners better understand the development of health care-related AI research and possible practice implications. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
However, the effect sizes were small. 1 key finding →
Participants: 34 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 7170 prescreened papers, 12 met the inclusion criteria. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Unsupervised machine learning identifies high likelihood of dementia in population-based surveys, even without cognitive and behavioral measures and without the need of clinical diagnosis of dementia in a subsample of the population. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18,165 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Adjusted for demographic and health behavior as well as health condition risk factors, desktop and cellphone ownership were independently associated with subsequent decreased cognitive decline over the four-year period. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,380 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.
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 →