Galantamine failed to significantly influence conversion to dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,048 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
81/100
As the first 1-year, multinational, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of a cholinesterase inhibitor in AD, these data support donepezil as a well tolerated and effective long-term treatment for patients with AD, with benefits over placebo on global assessment, cognition, and ADL. 3 key findings →
Participants: 286 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The target dose of 10 cm2 rivastigmine patch provides efficacy similar to the highest doses of capsules with a superior tolerability profile. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 1018 study patients enrolled, 508 were randomly assigned to rivastigmine and 510 to placebo; 17.3% of patients on rivastigmine and 21.4% on placebo progressed to AD (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.64-1.12]; p=0.225). 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
95 patients assigned donepezil and 99 patients assigned placebo completed the study. 1 key finding →
Participants: 128 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results of this trial support the hypothesis that memantine treatment leads to functional improvement and reduces care dependence in severely demented patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 166 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in elderly people. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The CAD106 first-in-human study demonstrated a favorable safety profile and promising antibody response. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 47 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During the 6534 person-years of follow-up (mean, 5.02 years per person), 440 subjects were diagnosed as having dementia, including 333 with Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,301 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our results suggest that risperidone may affect the CSF profile of AD biomarkers indicating more amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
More open debates of practical experiences from different trial centres and sponsors are essential for optimizing trial designs and improving conditions for participants. 2 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The future price of lecanemab in European countries is unknown. 2 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Many studies have explored whether depression in MCI increased the conversion rate to dementia, but findings are inconsistent. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia characterized by presence of extracellular amyloid plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles composed of tau protein. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and a major contributor to disability and dependency among older people. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent trials of anti-amyloid agents have not produced convincing improvements in clinical outcome in Alzheimer's disease; however, the reason for these poor or inconclusive results remains unclear. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At the 8th International Conference on Clinical Trials in Alzheimer's Disease held November 5-7, 2015 in Barcelona, Spain, promising data were presented on two candidate Alzheimer's disease immunotherapeutic agents, gantenerumab and aducanumab. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Where “Free full text” comes from
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
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
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.
- Journal tier up to 10 pts
- Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
- Study design up to 12 pts
- Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
- Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
- How recent up to 5 pts
- Sample size up to 4 pts
- Effect reported up to 3 pts
- Studied in people up to 3 pts
- Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
- Times cited up to 7 pts
- Citations per year up to 5 pts
- Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
- Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
- Still being cited up to 4 pts
- Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
- Institution's track record up to 3 pts
- Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
- Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
- Free to read up to 2 pts
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.
What this library is — and isn't
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 →