27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We aimed to assess whether continued treatment with antipsychotics in people with AD is associated with an increased risk of mortality. 5 key findings →
Participants: 165 Evidence: high
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
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
Group 3 showed less decrease in the SIB score at 12 and 24 weeks compared with group 1 (P < 0.05). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 31 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
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
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
The sample was mostly female (65%), White (76%), and 74 years old on average. 5 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 342,608 Evidence: moderate
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
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 APOE4/4 homozygotes receiving 150mg BID tramiprosate, efficacy in the traditional Mild AD patients (MMSE 20-26) was higher than the overall group (MMSE 16-26) and efficacy in the Mild patients (MMSE 22-26) was highest. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 147 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four-week changes in NPI-Q total scores did not differ significantly between the treatment and placebo groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
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
This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease, and examined the relationships between plasma donepezil concentration, red blood cell acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity and clinical response. 5 key findings →
Participants: 161 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No evidence of efficacy of 2 mg or 8 mg RSG XR monotherapy in cognition or global function was detected in the APOE-ε4-negative or other analysis populations. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 693 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Treatment with ChEIs results in a modest but significant therapeutic effect and modestly but significantly higher rates of adverse events and discontinuation of treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The target dose of 10 cm2 rivastigmine patch provides efficacy similar to the highest doses of capsules with a superior tolerability profile. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this 12-week trial, donepezil was not more effective than placebo in treating agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 272 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
9 of the 271 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 9. The same 9 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 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 →