27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The same daily ACB score was associated with a different degree of risk, depending on the ACB ratings of the individual drugs comprising the score. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 10,698 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Study objective To examine the risks and compare the occurrences of major long-term side effects (sexual dysfunction, bone fractures, diabetes, cardiovascular morbidity, acute myocardial infarction [MI], and dementia) in patients with prostate cancer who received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with those who did not. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 201,797 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings suggest that long-term use of BZDs is associated with an increased risk for dementia, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear, and further investigations are needed. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 779 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Taking more anticholinergic medications is associated with greater risk of hospitalization for confusion or dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use of anticholinergic medications among patients with OAB was associated with an increased risk of new-onset dementia compared to beta-3 agonist users. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After taking into consideration a possible protopathic bias in the 2 years preceding the AD diagnosis date, benzodiazepine use was not associated with an increased risk of developing AD. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The restricted use of BDZRs may contribute to dementia prevention in the elderly. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The incidence of hip fracture appears to be associated with benzodiazepine use. 3 key findings →
Participants: 125 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Community-based, commercially insured, older adults with probable dementia are more likely to take anticholinergics than matched controls. 2 key findings →
Participants: 418 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is an urgent need for greater consideration of the ethical and legal implications that remote technological monitoring might have upon workforce morale, recruitment and retention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Time requirements for the medication administration process are substantial in LTC and are compounded when nurses are unfamiliar with residents. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although the warnings slowed the growth in the use of atypical antipsychotic drugs among patients with dementia, they did not reduce the overall prescription rate of these potentially dangerous drugs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We used 1387 safety event reports for model development, 989 (71.3%) reports related to situational factors and 119 (8.6%) reports related to active failures. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study used administrative data from a large health care insurer in the southeast United States to describe the utilization pattern and health care outcomes of antipsychotic drug use in community-dwelling elders with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 27,380 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →