76/100
Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 46,836 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Benefits and risks of statins relative to neurological outcomes should be considered when prescribed for at-risk NDD populations. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 288,515 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Median follow-up increased from 2.0 years in the double-blind trial to 3.9 years overall. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,485 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
75/100
Simvastatin had no benefit on the progression of symptoms in individuals with mild to moderate AD despite significant lowering of cholesterol. 4 key findings →
Participants: 406 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the sequential parallel comparison design, 152 patients received dextromethorphan-quinidine and 127 received placebo during the study. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 93 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients taking rivastigmine were significantly less apathetic and anxious, and had fewer delusions and hallucinations while on treatment than controls. 4 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We undertook subgroup analysis by setting (community versus care home) and by modality (individual versus group). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Short term (26 weeks) tideglusib was acceptably safe but produced no clinical benefit in this trial. 4 key findings →
Participants: 86 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Inclusion criteria were early AD (mini-mental state examination [MMSE] score between 20 and 26 points or Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) score between 10 and 25 points), taking a stable dose of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (donepezil, galantamine, or rivastigmine) for at least 4 months, a modified Hachinski score of 4 points or less, and CT or MRI results that were consistent with AD. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 78 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
72 patients with PDD or DLB were randomly assigned and started treatment: 34 with memantine and 38 with placebo. 56 (78%) completed the study. 2 key findings →
Participants: 72 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab-mediated slowing of disease progression occurred across baseline tau PET and plasma P-tau217 levels. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
There were 132 846 individuals (mean [SD] age, 80.4 [7.6] years; 61.8% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.5 [4.6]) with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 1, 159 419 individuals (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [7.6] years; 59.7% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.6 [4.7]) with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 2, and 92 328 individuals with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 3 (mean [SD] age, 80.9 [7.7] years; 58.5% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.5 [4.7]). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 846 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants in the placebo group displayed cognitive and functional decline, whereas lithium-treated patients remained stable over 2 years. 4 key findings →
Participants: 61 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 1795 participants were enrolled (lecanemab:898; placebo:897). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The safety profile was similar for 20 μg treatment and placebo patients. 5 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No difference was seen in Clinical Global Impression scores between patients receiving placebo and those receiving linopirdine (n = 189). 4 key findings →
Participants: 382 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 8171 patients with late-life depression, 1443 (17.7 %) had TRLLD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,171 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), tau undergoes abnormal post-translational modifications and aggregations. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
receipt of (1) any mental health treatment (medication or psychotherapy); (2) any psychotherapy in a calendar quarter. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,913,945 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This is the primary Phase 3 Clarity AD trial report for lecanemab. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
This is the pivotal Phase 3 trial for donanemab in 1,736 people with early symptomatic Alzheimer's. Donanemab slowed decline on a combined cognitive/functional scale (iADRS) by about 22-35% relative to placebo over 76 weeks, depending on tau levels at baseline. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,736 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23,202 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the emergence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) disease-modifying therapies, identifying patients who could benefit from these treatments becomes critical. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,422 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 236 eligible participants screened, 43 were excluded. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 142 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
74/100
No significant differences were found in the primary efficacy analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 234 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From across this tag
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.
- Network-based stage-specific drug repurposing for Alzheimer's disease
- Cost-Effectiveness and Value-Based Pricing of Aducanumab for Patients With Early Alzheimer Disease
- Combination of Intranasal insulin and oral semaglutide for cognition in older adults with metabolic syndrome at high dementia risk
- Anticholinesterases: medical applications of neurochemical principles
- Flavonoids, cognition, and dementia: actions, mechanisms, and potential therapeutic utility for Alzheimer disease
- The exploration of novel Alzheimer's therapeutic agents from the pool of FDA approved medicines using drug repositioning, enzyme inhibition and kinetic mechanism approaches
- Diet therapy for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease in view of traditional Persian medicine: A review
- Practical lessons from amyloid immunotherapy trials in Alzheimer disease
- Cognitive improvement effects of electro-acupuncture for the treatment of MCI compared with Western medications: a systematic review and Meta-analysis
- Effects of medication on parotid salivary flow rates in an individual with dementia of the Alzheimer type
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 28,180 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.
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 28,180 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 →