Donepezil is safe and well tolerated. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 35 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Main results Nine studies (from eight published reports) of 5149 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (however defined) were included in the review. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,149 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Since the introduction of the first cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) in 1997, most clinicians and probably most patients would consider the cholinergic drugs, donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, to be the first line pharmacotherapy for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Galantamine is a specific, competitive, and reversible acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,805 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Between May 18, 2021, and Sept 8, 2023, 9981 participants were screened, of whom 3808 were randomly assigned; 1855 in evoke (semaglutide, n=928; placebo, n=927) and 1953 in evoke+ (semaglutide, n=976; placebo, n=977). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 928 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The most significant adverse events associated with these therapies are infusion-related reactions and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) with edema/effusion (ARIA-E) and/or hemorrhage/hemosiderin deposition (ARIA-H). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 234 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Oxidative stress, inflammation, and increased cholesterol levels are all mechanisms that have been associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sertraline did not demonstrate efficacy for the treatment depression symptoms in patients with AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 67 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
71/100
There was no difference between groups in time to emergence of agitation or psychosis (Cox proportional hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .88). 3 key findings →
Participants: 122 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This randomized clinical trial demonstrated the positive effects of rTMS on cognitive and functional performance, and the plastic changes in the hippocampal-cortical network. 5 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After controlling for the baseline AES-C score, site, and comedication with donepezil or galantamine, the mean change in the AES-C score between the bupropion and placebo groups was not statistically significant (mean change, 2.22; 95% CI, -0.47 to 4.91; P = .11). 4 key findings →
Participants: 108 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We included 22 studies involving 43,637 women. 5 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study showed that flutemetamol injection labeled with radioactive fluorine 18 was safe and had high sensitivity and specificity in an end-of-life population. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 176 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Suboptimal sleep causes cognitive decline and probably accelerates Alzheimer's Disease (AD) progression. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,056 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is used to modulate the activity of dysfunctional brain circuits. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 42 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
GRN mutations cause progranulin haploinsufficiency, which eventually leads to frontotemporal dementia (FTD-GRN). 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Main results We included 82 studies with 10,613 participants; 72 studies with 9783 participants provided extractable data. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,613 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sixty consecutive patients with prodromal or mild AD were screened; 50 were randomized to gamma or sham tACS (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [7.8] years; 25 [50.0%] female and 25 [50.0%] male). 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sleep deprivation, or prolonged wakefulness, interferes with a physiological morning decrease in Aβ42. 1 key finding →
Participants: 26 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this 3-year randomized clinical trial, ω-3 treatment was safe and well-tolerated but failed to reach significant reductions in WML accumulation or neuronal integrity breakdown among all participants, which may be attributable to sample size limitations. 5 key findings →
Participants: 102 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This is the first randomized trial to investigate the impact of a ketogenic diet in patients with uniform diagnoses of AD. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 26 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Low-dose aspirin did not prevent depression in this large-scale study of otherwise healthy older adults. 3 key findings →
Participants: 114 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Donepezil and antidepressant therapy temporarily improved global cognition (treatment × time interaction, F₂,₂₁₆ = 3.78; P = .03), but effect sizes were small (Cohen d = 0.27, group difference at 1 year). 2 key findings →
Participants: 73 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Use of naproxen or celecoxib did not improve cognitive function. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Group differences were seen in skin and subcutaneous tissue concerns (P=.05), including 3 possible drug rashes and 3 reports of hair color change in the treatment groups. 2 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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.
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →