Our results suggest that the risk-benefit profile of mAbs remains unclear. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In 2021, aducanumab, an immunotherapy targeting amyloid-β, was approved for Alzheimer's disease (AD) by the US Food and Drug Administration thanks to positive results on a putative biological surrogate marker. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The amyloid cascade model of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD) is well supported in observational studies. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between July 2023 and January 2025, 169 patients were screened and 86 initiated lecanemab treatment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 31 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, escalating dose trial explored the safety and efficacy of tideglusib, an inhibitor of glycogen synthase kinase-3, in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current literature is conflicting with regard to the effects of statins on memory loss. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Observational studies have given conflicting results about the effect of statins in preventing dementia and cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We treated 17 patients who had moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease with oral tetrahydroaminoacridine (THA), a centrally active anticholinesterase, in a three-phase study. 3 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
According to CDR-SB measurements, lecanemab showed effectiveness in reducing brain amyloid and cognitive decline, with a change from baseline of 1.21. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-nine RCTs were included. Donanemab and lecanemab ranked among the most effective treatments for improving cognitive function (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale - Sum of Boxes P-scores: 0.88 and 0.77) and daily activities (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Activities of Daily Living P-scores: 0.85 and 0.90), based on network meta-analysis findings. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab (Kisunla) is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody specifically targeting a modified form of β-amyloid found predominantly within plaques (characterized as N-terminal pyroglutamate Aβ). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All drugs improved the cognitive function, with the effect value ranging from -1.23 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.30) for 20 mg memantine to -3.29 (95% CI -4.14 to -2.45) for 32 mg galantamine. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects millions of people worldwide. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with low-dose donepezil, galantamine use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.60-1.18), cardiovascular serious adverse events (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.98), and entry into a residential care facility (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.89). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
By addressing gaps in prior NMAs, this study aims to provide an in-depth evaluation of safety outcomes associated with different ChEI and memantine doses and formulations across various dementia types. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In our final study sample (N = 21,558), significant difference in survival among index AD medication groups were observed with donepezil being associated with better survival than memantine, and oral and transdermal forms of rivastigmine for both ITT and as-treated analysis. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 21,558 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
While most studies to date have been cross-sectional, limiting the establishment of causal relationships, the potential benefits of trace lithium for suicide prevention and dementia prevention are notable, especially in the absence of radical treatments for suicide and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive dysfunction is common in late life depression (LLD) and is a major risk factor for dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of note, dramatic progress has been made in recent years in diabetes research and clinical practice, which includes approval of antidiabetic agents with novel mechanisms of action along with publication of clinical trial results with these drugs, and novel diagnostic and therapeutic devices, such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and sensor augmented pumps (SAP). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
21% (7065) of the cohort had a record of mental illness at study entry, 25% (8300) had a record of challenging behaviour, and 49% (16,242) had a record of prescription of psychotropic drugs. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33,016 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The negative association between depression treatment and incident dementia was significant in the increasing and chronically low courses, highlighting the necessity of timely interventional strategies before depression progresses to a chronically severe state. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 354,313 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Pioglitazone was generally well tolerated in this pilot study. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 29 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Quetiapine was well-tolerated and did not worsen parkinsonism. 3 key findings →
Participants: 23 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
From across this tag
10 of the 3,106 studies in this tag that have a study page, 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.
- Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response analyses of safety (ARIA-E and isolated ARIA-H) of lecanemab in subjects with early Alzheimer's disease
- Health Care Resource Use and Social Costs in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Alzheimer's Disease
- Metformin, other antidiabetic drugs, and risk of Alzheimer's disease: a population-based case-control study
- Drug repurposing for neurodegenerative diseases
- Lecanemab e la malattia di Alzheimer-Perusini: tra speranze terapeutiche e sfide regolatorie
- Amyloid-related Imaging Abnormalities in Alzheimer Disease Treated with Anti-Amyloid-β Therapy
- Acetylcholine and hallucinations: disease-related compared to drug-induced alterations in human consciousness
- Pharmacologic treatments of dementia
- Effect of Dextromethorphan-Quinidine on Agitation in Patients With Alzheimer Disease Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial
- Akt/GSK3 signaling in the action of psychotropic drugs
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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 →