28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Three cohorts of interdisciplinary scholars (N = 53) have started and two have completed DEM-PCCT. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 53 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The neurodegenerative disease field has enjoyed extremely limited success in the development of effective therapeutics. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our trial showed that olfactory-stimulated oxygenation differences in the orbitofrontal cortex detected by fNIRS were associated with cognitive impairment and cognitive-related objectives. 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 97 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This review highlights a great heterogeneity in RCTs design of drugs for A/A in AD and some key methodological issues such as definition of A/A, choice of outcome measures and caregiver participation that could be addressed by an expert consensus to optimize future trials design. 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results from 5 patients with eAD treated with LD-WBRT (10 Gy in 5 fractions) demonstrate a positive safety profile and provide preliminary, hypothesis-generating data to suggest that this treatment stabilizes or improves cognition. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We expect to demonstrate that personalized TMS intervention has a measurable positive impact in cognition, emotion, daily living activities and brain connectivity, thus representing a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As our population ages, the incidence and prevalence of Alzheimer disease (AD) will increase dramatically. 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 are conducting a single-blinded, National Institutes of Health stage-2, randomized clinical trial to establish the efficacy of AB versus a time-matched and dose-matched education control (Health Enhancement Program [HEP]) in improving self-reported and objective outcomes of physical, cognitive, and emotional functions in 260 participants. 3 key findings →
Participants: 37 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of two doses of anapsos in comparison with placebo on cognitive performance, brain bioelectrical activity pattern and cerebral hemodynamic parameters in patients with mild to moderate senile dementia of vascular type and Alzheimer type. 3 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Data available on the relationship between salivary function and specific drug therapy are sparse. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our study shows that ICERS of PFA combined with MI and MI alone amounted to €21,443 and €21,543 respectively per improved Z score point compared to the placebo and are below the WTP of €50,000 while the ICER of PFA alone amounted to €111,720 per improved Z score point. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,525 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This article primarily describes the design of a monocentre, randomized, doubleblind trial to be conducted in France to evaluate the effect of the combination of tDCS and cognitive training on apathy compared to a group treated exclusively by cognitive training (sham tDCS). 3 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The INTε4+ group did not seem markedly more responsive to the guidance than the other groups. 2 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A definitive trial to test the critical window hypothesis is not feasible. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
New personalized endpoints that are clinically meaningful to individuals and their families should be developed. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that destroys patient memory and cognition, communication ability with the social environment and the ability to carry out daily activities. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 43 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Process evaluations confirmed satisfaction and high completion rates of the program. 5 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab reduced amyloid PET in symptomatic participants with DIAD at Week 24. 3 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Clinical trials of anti-amyloid-β (Aβ) monoclonal antibodies in Alzheimer disease (AD) infer target engagement from Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) and/or fluid biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 43 individuals enrolled, 14 were women (33%); age (mean ± SD) was 73 ± 8.5 years. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 43 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This innovative study aims to test the feasibility of iTBS as a cognitive enhancement strategy in MCI. 3 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multidomain interventions may benefit younger older adults or those with overly strict or lenient HbA1c control; however, these findings need confirmation in future studies. 3 key findings →
Participants: 531 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A repeated measures ANOVA showed that in comparison to the control group, both intervention groups significantly improved mood, quality of life, MIND diet score and all COM-B components at follow-up (p < 0.05). 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Out of 180 subjects, 74 showed short-term training gain transfer that was maintained over 3 months in 19 subjects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 235 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This work was supported by a Crossover grant (Maintaining Optimal Cognitive Functioning In Aging [MOCIA] 17611) of the Dutch Research Council (NWO), granted in December 2019. 5 key findings →
Participants: 102 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
9 of the 1,875 studies in this tag, 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 (3.7% 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 →