28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
A nurse-led, multidomain intervention did not result in a reduced incidence of all-cause dementia in an unselected population of older people. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Training effects were of a magnitude equivalent to the amount of decline expected in elderly persons without dementia over 7- to 14-year intervals. 4 key findings →
Participants: 711 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Good levels of participation, adherence, and retention appear to be achievable for participants through age 85 years. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two reviewers independently screened the search results and reference lists of the identified papers and related reviews. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Backgrounds To investigate the efficacy of a community group-based intervention among community-dwelling older adults with physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 733 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This project will be part of the World-Wide FINGERS (Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability) Network, of which common identifiable data will be shared and harmonized among the consortia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 165 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia) Risk Score is a validated tool estimating dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 112 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Within 17 months, participant recruitment has been successfully completed (N = 1210; mean age: 67.7 years (SD: 4.6); 64% female). 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite older racial and ethnic minorities (REMs) being more likely to develop dementia they are underrepresented in clinical trials focused on neurological disorders. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 100,748 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was no significant difference in days spent at home between the specialist unit and standard care groups (median 51 v 45 days, 95% confidence interval for difference -12 to 24; P=0.3). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 600 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older people who view a video depiction of a patient with advanced dementia after hearing a verbal description of the condition are more likely to opt for comfort as their goal of care compared with those who solely listen to a verbal description. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 106 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our educational intervention increased ACP initiation, and the number of nonmedical and medical preferences discussed. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 140 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Emergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,350 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
451 (11%) of 4241 beds in ten hospitals were included in the analyses. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 118 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
We report the case of a 79-year-old woman with Alzheimer's disease who participated in a Phase III randomized controlled trial called CLARITY-AD testing the experimental drug lecanemab. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The risk-benefit profile of anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear, especially concerning their safety and overall effects on AD progression and cognitive function. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 14,980 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundDonanemab, a monoclonal antibody targeting amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, has shown the ability to reduce cerebral amyloid burden in early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 2,054 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prespecified primary analyses did not show any treatment benefit at either of the doses tested for the coprimary outcomes (change in ADAS-Cog score compared with control [n=354, 6·32, 95% CI 5·31-7·34]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day [n=257] -0·02, -1·60 to 1·56, p=0·9834, 125 mg LMTM twice a day [n=250] -0·43, -2·06 to 1·20, p=0·9323; change in ADCS-ADL score compared with control [-8·22, 95% CI -9·63 to -6·82]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day -0·93, -3·12 to 1·26, p=0·8659; 125 mg LMTM twice a day -0·34, -2·61 to 1·93, p=0·9479). 3 key findings →
Participants: 354 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We developed an endophenotype disease module-based methodology for Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug repurposing and identified sildenafil as a potential disease risk modifier. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Tacrine produced statistically significant, dose-related improvements on objective performance-based tests, clinician- and caregiver-rated global evaluations, and measures of quality of life. 5 key findings →
Participants: 663 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Behavioral treatment is a safe and effective conservative intervention that should be made more readily available to patients as a first-line treatment for urge and mixed incontinence. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A systematic approach to the management of pain significantly reduced agitation in residents of nursing homes with moderate to severe dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This double-blind randomized trial does not support the hypothesis that the use of soy protein supplement containing isoflavones improves cognitive function, bone mineral density, or plasma lipids in healthy postmenopausal women when started at the age of 60 years or later. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
10 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 10. The same 10 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 →