27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,791 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results show that in addition to APOE ε4 allele count, severity of Aβ neuropathology and comorbid cerebrovascular pathology may be relevant for clinicians prescribing anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies for early AD and developing individualized safety monitoring plans. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 985 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Gradual up-titration of dose significantly reduced ARIA-E risk while demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics compared to standard dosing. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 843 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) regulates microglial function and is implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis. 2 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 381 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Between May 18, 2021, and Sept 8, 2023, 9981 participants were screened, of whom 3808 were randomly assigned; 1855 in evoke (semaglutide, n=928; placebo, n=927) and 1953 in evoke+ (semaglutide, n=976; placebo, n=977). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 928 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Baseline biomarkers largely do not predict risk for developing ARIA-E. ARIA-E was associated with significant longitudinal changes in several biomarkers, with larger reductions in amyloid PET and CSF p-tau and t-tau concentrations, and paradoxically greater hippocampal volume reduction and ventricular enlargement, suggesting that ARIA-E in bapineuzumab-treated cases may be related to increased Aβ efflux from the brain and affecting downstream pathogenic processes. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,512 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
We used Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to examine the distribution of incident ARIA-E from the start of bapineuzumab treatment and proportional hazards regression models to assess risk factors associated with ARIA. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 262 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study indicates no benefits for memantine in the long-term treatment and prophylaxis of clinically significant neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →
Participants: 199 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In our dataset search, we identified 108 910 people with a record indicating dementia at any time. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 9,819 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Guidelines recommend limiting antipsychotic treatment to short-term use ( Methods Using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, linked with hospital and mortality data from Jan 1, 1998, to March 31, 2021, we emulated two sets of target trials, one after 12 weeks of antipsychotic treatment and another after 24 weeks of antipsychotic treatment, to compare continuing treatment versus tapering treatment and continuing treatment versus abrupt discontinuation of treatment. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 24,822 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This was a retrospective analysis using nationally representative UK general practice population between 1998 and 2018, from electronic health records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD, GOLD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,219,732 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent published clinical trial safety data showed that 41% of Alzheimer patients experienced amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), marks of microhemorrhages and edema in the brain, following administration of Biogen's Aduhelm/aducanumab (amino acids 3-7 of the Aβ peptide). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Amyloid-targeted monoclonal antibody therapies have introduced a new era in the treatment of early Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →