In TRAILBLAZER-ALZ, 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 [53.3%] female) were randomized. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,955 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.
Alzheimer's disease is characterized by amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 2,129 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In patients with early Alzheimer's disease, donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 257 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among community-dwelling patients with moderate to severe dementia and their caregivers, dementia palliative care, compared with usual care, did not significantly improve patients' neuropsychiatric symptoms through 24 months. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 201 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The efficacy and safety of donepezil as a treatment for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) was investigated in a multicenter, double-blind study. 4 key findings →
Participants: 162 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 236 eligible participants screened, 43 were excluded. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 142 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
74/100
Among 1736 randomized participants (mean age, 73.0 years; 996 [57.4%] women; 1182 [68.1%] with low/medium tau pathology and 552 [31.8%] with high tau pathology), 1320 (76%) completed the trial. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 860 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
change from baseline in Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite score. 5 key findings →
Participants: 189 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
71/100
LY450139 dihydrate, a gamma-secretase inhibitor, was studied in a randomized, controlled trial of 70 patients with Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 70 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Compared with the usual care clinics (12-month incidence, 213 of 1724 [12.4%]), the odds of an incident ADRD diagnosis were higher in the clinics randomized to QDRS plus PDM (12-month incidence, 355 of 2301 [15.4%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.64) but not the clinics randomized to PDM only (12-month incidence, 134 of 1300 [10.3%]; AOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63-1.11]). 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 5,325 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We were unable to detect a difference in HRQOL for screening for ADRD among older adults. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,008 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Classification of evidence This study provides Class I evidence that for women with AD, raloxifene does not have a significant cognitive effect. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Collaborative care for the treatment of Alzheimer disease resulted in significant improvement in the quality of care and in behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia among primary care patients and their caregivers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In DIAD, solanezumab was not associated with ARIA. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Post-MI Hosp-CR and Home-CR are similarly effective in the short term and improve TWC and HRQL in each age group. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 90 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
Donanemab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the insoluble form of β-amyloid found in plaques, significantly slows cognitive and functional decline of AD in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild AD-related dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Advances in genetic research have provided a basis for susceptibility testing for Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 160 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The authors could not definitively demonstrate whether the addition of 2 years of in-home occupational therapy to a collaborative care management model slowed the rate of functional decline among persons with Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Rivastigmine administration during open-label extension therapy benefited patients who had progressed slowly and those who had progressed rapidly during initial double-blind placebo treatment. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 187 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In preclinical studies, it has demonstrated vascular protective and antioxidant effects, with emerging evidence suggesting potential neuroprotective properties. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 185 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This randomized clinical trial found that ADRD screening in PC was not associated with improvement in family member health-related quality of life, caregiver preparedness, or caregiving self-efficacy. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,808 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The temporal relationship of cognitive deficit and functional impairment in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is not well characterized. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants age 60-85 years deemed cognitively unimpaired were disclosed an elevated or not elevated brain amyloid result by a certified clinician. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,686 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ADNI-3 will aim to inform AD treatment trials and facilitate development of AD disease-modifying treatments. 2 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
- 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 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