28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
56 individuals (mean (sd) age: 68.8 (4.2) years, 26 females, 24/32 intervention/control group) were included at baseline and 41 returned after an average of 28 months for the second assessment. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 56 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Clinical characteristics and demographics were similar between groups. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 89 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
So far, however, only few such multi-component trials have been launched, but yielding promising results. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,152 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
(1) Data-driven AD progression models supported multifactorial interactions rather than a linear cascade of events. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with severe cognitive impairments as well as some metabolic defects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An ECL immunoassay testing plasma P-tau217 accurately predicts amyloid PET positivity in cognitively unimpaired individuals. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Improving digital technology for caregivers requires studies with larger populations and longitudinal outcomes. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT Participants: 240 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Between October 2021 and June 2022, 53 candidates were assessed; 29 met eligibility criteria and were randomised. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 29 Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One hundred sixteen participants consented and 93 (46 waitlist control, 47 intervention) were included in the analyses. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 93 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eight out of 15 patients completed the entire study. 4 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Controlling for pretest, the benefit-finding group had lower depression than the psychoeducation group at post-test, despite the fact that some caregivers found benefit-finding challenging. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Homocysteine lowering in dementia patients did not significantly reduce global cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Participants: 140 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
1680 participants were randomized over the recruitment period in MAPT study. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,680 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Subjects receiving the activity specific exercise program improved in ability to perform transfers, whereas subjects in the other 2 groups declined. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Addition of ATX to ongoing cholinesterase-inhibitor therapy was generally well tolerated but did not significantly improve cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Participants: 92 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease (AD), there are significant losses of activities of daily living (ADL). 5 key findings →
Participants: 404 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Earlier NH admission of Australian compared to U.K. and U.S. subjects may be due to differences in health care, NH systems, availability, and affordability. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Donepezil and memantine have similar modest clinical and spectroscopic effect on mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 32 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
No registered drug affects the deposition of Aβ in the brain of AD patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 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
Memantine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, is approved in the United States and Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer disease (AD) and has also been investigated in patients with mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The authors believe these design elements are important features to be included in trials of depression and other neuropsychiatric disturbances in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
ABT-089, an α4β2 neuronal nicotinic receptor partial agonist, was evaluated for efficacy and safety in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease patients receiving stable doses of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 337 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Environmental enrichment may slow cognitive decay possibly acting through an improvement in vascular function. 2 key findings →
Participants: 55 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
9 of the 1,900 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 9. The same 9 appear here every time.
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 28,580 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →