28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The outcomes were better among patients treated with rivastigmine than among those who received placebo; however, the differences between these two groups were moderate and similar to those reported in trials of rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 541 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study was stopped early for futility, but dose-dependent effects observed in exploratory analyses on select clinical and biomarker endpoints suggest that higher dosing with gantenerumab may be necessary to achieve clinical efficacy. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,089 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, some (like tacrine) are associated with adverse effects such as hepatotoxicity, but donepezil (E2020, Aricept) is safer. 5 key findings →
Participants: 4,365 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Tacrine, the first of the cholinesterase inhibitors to undergo extensive trials for this purpose, was associated with significant adverse effects including hepatotoxicity. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,370 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At week 32, compared with patients assigned to placebo (59 assessed), those assigned to rivastigmine (55 assessed) had improved step time variability for normal walking (ratio of geometric means 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p=0.002) and the simple dual task (0.79; 0.62-0.99; p=0.045). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 130 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, NPTs have excellent potential to improve cognition in people with dementia, and PBM may have more significant benefits in improving cognition than the other four NPTs. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 38 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Metformin, thiazolidinediones, pioglitazone, GLP1RAs and SGLT2is were associated with reduced risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three donepezil, two galantamine, one rivastigmine, and two memantine trials, comprising 3093 patients on the study drugs and 2090 patients on placebo, met the selection criteria. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,093 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Diuretic, ARB, and ACE-I use was, in addition to and/or independently of mean systolic blood pressure, associated with reduced risk of AD dementia in participants with normal cognition, while only diuretic use was associated with reduced risk in participants with MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,928 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Comparable modest reductions in agitation occurred in patients receiving haloperidol, trazodone, BMT, and placebo. 4 key findings →
Participants: 149 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Community occupational therapy intervention for patients with dementia and their care givers is successful and cost effective, especially in terms of informal care giving. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 135 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fewer than half of the older adults dispensed donepezil in Ontario would have been eligible to participate in the RCTs that established the efficacy of this drug. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,423 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total, 994 patients received cholinesterase inhibitor treatment (rivastigmine, n = 495; donepezil, n = 499), and 57.9% of patients completed the study. 5 key findings →
Participants: 495 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 432 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, dementia was documented in 193 (6.3%) of the 3051 randomized participants in the actively treated group and 217 (7.1%) of the 3054 randomized participants in the placebo group (relative risk reduction, 12% [95% confidence interval, -8% to 28%]; P =.2). 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,105 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The efficacy and safety of donepezil as a treatment for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) was investigated in a multicenter, double-blind study. 4 key findings →
Participants: 162 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) describes a broad spectrum of cognitive impairments caused by cerebrovascular disease, ranging from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,193 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These data demonstrate that donepezil is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for VaD and show it may have an important place in the management of this condition. 5 key findings →
Participants: 603 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of rivastigmine, 487 patients with dementia associated with Parkinson disease underwent assessment of attention on the Cognitive Drug Research computerized cognitive assessment system before dosing and 16 and 24 weeks later. 2 key findings →
Participants: 487 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No significant difference was seen in cognitive and functional decline between early and delayed treatment groups. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 85 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SC gantenerumab at doses of up to 1,200 mg Q4W were well tolerated in participants with mild AD dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 225 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donepezil has significant efficacy in the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with mild to moderate AD. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 134 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A low-dose regimen of prednisone is not useful in the treatment of AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 138 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The overall number of participants enrolled was 192, with a mean (standard deviation) amyloid PET load at baseline of 101.80 (29.80) centiloids. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 149 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Each matched cohort included 23,386 (semaglutide vs sitagliptin), 22,584 (vs empagliflozin), and 19,206 (vs glipizide) patients. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 23,386 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
10 of the 3,071 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 →