Resveratrol was safe and well-tolerated. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The mean CDR-SB score at baseline was approximately 3.2 in both groups. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Solanezumab, which targets monomeric amyloid in persons with elevated brain amyloid levels, did not slow cognitive decline as compared with placebo over a period of 240 weeks in persons with preclinical Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 1795 participants from Core and 1612 participants with at least one dose of lecanemab (Core + OLE) were included. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00056225. 1 key finding →
Participants: 340 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Antibody administration was well tolerated with doses up to 400 mg weekly. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
Simvastatin had no benefit on the progression of symptoms in individuals with mild to moderate AD despite significant lowering of cholesterol. 4 key findings →
Participants: 406 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This is the primary Phase 3 Clarity AD trial report for lecanemab. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Avagacestat dosed at 25 and 50 mg daily was relatively well tolerated and had low discontinuation rates. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 209 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although prespecified criteria for testing treatment effects were not met, these data suggest a potential treatment effect in patients with mild AD treated with high-dose crenezumab. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 184 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Avagacestat did not demonstrate efficacy and was associated with adverse dose-limiting effects. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 263 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 200 participants, 99 were assigned to methylphenidate and 101 to placebo. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
69/100
Primary clinical efficacy outcomes were not significant. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
69/100
Despite evidence of target engagement as indicated by an increase in serum insulin-like growth factor-1, the human growth hormone secretagogue MK-677 25 mg was ineffective at slowing the rate of progression of Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 563 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Estrogen replacement therapy for 1 year did not slow disease progression nor did it improve global, cognitive, or functional outcomes in women with mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examined the efficacy and safety of memantine monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 350 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
66/100
Statistically significant effects of AZD0530 treatment were not found on relative CMRgl reduction in an Alzheimer disease-associated region of interest or on secondary clinical or biomarker measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Benefit continued to accrue with ongoing lecanemab treatment through 36 months. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients and their study partners who were enrolled in a clinical trial supported proxy consent both for themselves and as a matter of policy. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These responder analyses may assist clinicians in evaluating the impact of memantine in a relevant clinical scenario, i.e., in patients with AD previously stabilized on a cholinesterase inhibitor. 3 key findings →
Participants: 404 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These post-hoc analyses support the beneficial effects of memantine on cognition observed in a previously reported clinical trial. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Physostigmine demonstrated a statistically significant benefit compared with placebo on a clinical global rating of change and an objective test of cognitive function. 3 key findings →
Participants: 850 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among mild to moderate AD patients, enrolled in an actual clinical trial, these results suggest evidence based guidelines for using the MacCAT-CR understanding subscale to help guide judgments about whether a patient has the capacity to consent. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
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 →