The 172 total participants had a mean (SD) age of 75.7 (4.8) years, and 108 (62.8%) were women. 4 key findings →
Participants: 172 Evidence: high
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.
80/100
Epidemiological studies suggest that consumption of DHA is associated with a reduced incidence of Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Participants: 102 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants had a mean age of 73.4 years; 62.7% were women, and 34.9% were Hispanic or nonwhite. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 126 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 780 PWDs (56.3% female; mean [SD] age, 78.1 [9.9] years) and 780 caregivers (70.9% female; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.0] years) lived in California (n = 452), Nebraska (n = 284), or Iowa (n = 44). 2 key findings →
Participants: 452 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 267 (3.8%) women had diabetes and 297 (4.2%) had IFG. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 267 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Outpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. 5 key findings →
Participants: 584 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75 NTR ) signaling pathways substantially overlap with degenerative networks active in Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 242 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 54 adults assessed for eligibility, 11 did not meet study criteria, and 9 declined to participate. 2 key findings →
Participants: 34 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
74/100
Although conclusions are limited by small sample size and the possibility of a type II error, results suggest that short-term estrogen therapy does not improve symptoms of most women with AD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite undetectable TPI-287 levels in CSF, CSF biomarkers demonstrated decreased chitinase-3-like protein-1 (YKL-40) levels in the 4RT treatment arm (mean [SD], -8.4 [26.0] ng/mL) compared with placebo (mean [SD], 10.4 [42.3] ng/mL; median difference, -14.6 [95% CI, -30.0 to 0.2] ng/mL; P = .048, Mann-Whitney test). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were no baseline differences between active treatment and placebo groups in age, education, brain volumes, clinical rating scores, or APOE ε4 carrier status. 3 key findings →
Participants: 313 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) increases dementia risk with no pharmacologic treatment available. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants receiving CDCM showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in NPI score, -10.26 [95% CI, -16.95 to -3.58]; P = .003; Cohen d, -0.78 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.46]), better mental health (AMD in SF-12 Mental Component Summary score, 2.26 [95% CI, 0.31-4.21]; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.26 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.51]), and lower caregiver burden (AMD in BIZA-D score, -0.59 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.37]; P Conclusions and relevance In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, CDCM was associated with improved patient, caregiver, and health system-relevant outcomes over 36 months beyond the intervention period. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 428 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
GRN mutations cause progranulin haploinsufficiency, which eventually leads to frontotemporal dementia (FTD-GRN). 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The primary outcome was difference in the change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy scores for oxytocin versus placebo periods in the per-protocol population after 6 weeks of treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 94 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Purpose of the study During aging, musical activities can help maintain physical and mental health and cognitive abilities, but their rehabilitative use has not been systematically explored in persons with dementia (PWDs). 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A total of 716 individuals were included in the analysis: 413 cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants (58.6% female; mean age = 70.6 years, SD = 7.9) and 303 cognitively impaired (CI) participants (54.7% female; mean age = 73.2 years, SD = 7.4). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 716 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
67/100
Additionally, our results indicate that AD subjects carrying APOE ε4 are more responsive to the neuroprotective effects of physical activity. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among eligible participants (n = 705,061), 264,294 individuals (37.5% of eligible participants) initiated any statin during 2001-2010 ("initiators"), of whom 249,613 (94.4%) were matched with 255,937 unique noninitiators to create the analytic sample (322,358 unique participants; mean age at baseline = 67.4 years; 55.1% female). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 322,358 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Observational studies support the use of NSAIDs for prevention of AD, but RCT do not. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In elderly persons, antipsychotic drugs are clinically prescribed off-label for a number of disorders outside of their Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These studies fundamentally deepen our understanding of AD progression and its underlying genetic basis, which in turn informs and improves clinical trial design. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is an urgent need to identify lifestyle activities that reduce functional decline and dementia associated with population aging. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We used Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to examine the distribution of incident ARIA-E from the start of bapineuzumab treatment and proportional hazards regression models to assess risk factors associated with ARIA. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 262 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