27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
ARIA is an adverse event associated with donanemab treatment that requires safety monitoring. 4 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 3,030 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Tau accumulation in patients with Alzheimer's disease tracks closely with cognitive decline and plays a role in the later stages of disease progression. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 108 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were 813 participants in CREAD (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [8.2] years; 483 female and 330 male) and 806 in CREAD2 (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.7] years; 456 female and 350 male). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 3,664 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Enrollment was undertaken between May 18, 2021, and September 8, 2023. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 1795 participants from Core and 1612 participants with at least one dose of lecanemab (Core + OLE) were included. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dose group efficacy required a significant benefit over placebo for the primary end point and 1 or more key secondary end points. 4 key findings →
Participants: 933 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This clinical trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of a 6-week course of daily neuroAD™ therapy. 4 key findings →
Participants: 131 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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
Furthermore, the dramatic and favorable effects on disturbing behaviors in AD suggest a novel approach for treatment of noncognitive symptoms. 1 key finding →
Participants: 343 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among older persons with AMD, oral supplementation with LCPUFAs or lutein/zeaxanthin had no statistically significant effect on cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Participants: 89 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
There were 21 603 to 51 236 patients per year (total for 2010-2020, 381 488 patients) in the OAC-eligible incident AF cohort (mean [SD] age, 77.2 [6.1] to 77.4 [6.8] years; 13 871 [51.8%] to 22 901 [49.8%] women). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 236 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Baseline biomarkers largely do not predict risk for developing ARIA-E. ARIA-E was associated with significant longitudinal changes in several biomarkers, with larger reductions in amyloid PET and CSF p-tau and t-tau concentrations, and paradoxically greater hippocampal volume reduction and ventricular enlargement, suggesting that ARIA-E in bapineuzumab-treated cases may be related to increased Aβ efflux from the brain and affecting downstream pathogenic processes. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,512 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Association of HT use and risk of AD may depend on timing of use. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We sent invitations to 91,433 households; 5542 (6.1%) responded, 2120 completed the Baseline Survey (78.5% online; 21.5% via computer-assisted telephone interview), and 2087 were deemed eligible, yielding a response rate of 2.3%. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 374 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Statistically significant effects of AZD0530 treatment were not found on relative CMRgl reduction in an Alzheimer disease-associated region of interest or on secondary clinical or biomarker measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This double-blind randomized controlled trial of vitamin therapy demonstrates a strong correlation between serum tHcy and plasma Abeta40 concentrations in subjects with ischemic stroke. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 150 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Benefit continued to accrue with ongoing lecanemab treatment through 36 months. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Donanemab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the insoluble form of β-amyloid found in plaques, significantly slows cognitive and functional decline of AD in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild AD-related dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The data are consistent with expected rates of amyloid positivity among individuals with clinical diagnoses of AD and MCI, and indicate the potential value of florbetapir F18 PET as an adjunct to clinical diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 184 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A condensed protocol for communicating genetic risk for Alzheimer disease achieved similar educational results as an extended protocol in this study. 3 key findings →
Participants: 280 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In patients with moderately severe impairment from Alzheimer's disease, treatment with selegiline or alpha-tocopherol slows the progression of disease.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The majority of participants were female and were taking concomitant psychotropic medications (antidepressants and antipsychotics) at baseline. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 75 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregiver stress is associated with negative outcomes for both caregivers and care recipients. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 14 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →