28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Emerging evidence suggests that treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) could be an interesting treatment strategy to reduce neurological complications such as stroke, cognitive impairment, and peripheral neuropathy. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
AD patients aged 50-85 years were randomized to open-label treatment with oral rivastigmine, donepezil or galantamine for 13 weeks. 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 63 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of seven studies were included. The forest plot results showed that taking lithium therapy reduced the risk of AD (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.78) and is also protective in reducing the risk of dementia (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.56-0.77). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients treated with galantamine 24 mg/day had a significantly better outcome than placebo on ADAS-cog; the treatment difference was 3 points on the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis ( p = 0.01) and 4.2 points on per protocol analysis ( p = 0.001). 4 key findings →
Participants: 285 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Antipsychotic use compared with non-use in adults with dementia was associated with increased risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, heart failure, fracture, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, but not ventricular arrhythmia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 173,910 Evidence: moderate
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
Synthesis methods We meta-analysed results for each outcome within each comparison using the inverse variance method and the random-effects model. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 20,342 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Reduction of amyloid via amyloid-targeting therapies may result in clinical benefit. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,582 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The primary study randomized 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 female participants [53.3%]). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this large-scale randomized controlled trial evaluating statin therapy as a treatment for mild to moderate Alzheimer disease, atorvastatin was not associated with significant clinical benefit over 72 weeks. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 640 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
EGb was safe and appears capable of stabilizing and, in a substantial number of cases, improving the cognitive performance and the social functioning of demented patients for 6 months to 1 year. 5 key findings →
Participants: 309 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75 NTR ) signaling pathways substantially overlap with degenerative networks active in Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 242 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
PDE5I initiation in men with ED was associated with a lower risk of AD, particularly in those most frequently issued prescriptions. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 269,725 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Observational epidemiological studies have shown a positive association between hypertension and risk of incident dementia; however, the effects of antihypertensive therapy on cognitive function in controlled trials have been conflicting, and meta-analyses of the trials have not provided clear evidence of whether antihypertensive treatment reduces dementia incidence. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,687 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Occupational therapy improved patients' daily functioning and reduced the burden on the care giver, despite the patients' limited learning ability. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 135 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This pilot study was unable to demonstrate a benefit for donepezil in preventing or treating delirium in a relatively young and cognitively-intact group of elderly patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. 2 key findings →
Participants: 80 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The experimental paradigm was feasible and acceptable. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 95 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Parkinson's disease (PD) may be associated with subtle functional impairment and worse quality of life. 4 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our analysis found that lecanemab showed significant positive statistical efficacy with respect to cognition, function, and behavior in patients with early AD though the actual clinical significance is yet to be established. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
According to studies, lecanemab lessens clinical deterioration and reduces brain amyloid-beta plaques (difference,.45; 95% confidence interval,.67 to.23; p < .001). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There are fewer than normal glucose transporters at the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018085967) compares the efficacy (i.e. pro-cognitive effects) and acceptability of antidiabetic agents for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,855 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cholinergic dysfunction is also associated with neuropsychiatric and functional deficits, but results from randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors are conflicting. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 29 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The meta-analyses suggest the credible efficacy and safety of memantine in treating AD when used alone or in combination with ChEIs. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,567 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, we investigated whether statins alter cholesterol metabolites and reduce Abeta levels in the cerebrospinal fluid of 44 patients with Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: high
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 →