No significant between-group effects of exenatide on ADAS-Cog11 score (p = 0.17) were detected. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
We aimed to summarise current evidence on different antidiabetic drugs to delay cognitive impairment, including mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia, among subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Quality pharmacological treatment can improve survival in many types of cancer. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Key Messages: Our results suggest that benzodiazepine use is significantly associated with dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The COMCID trial will identify the therapeutic potential of cilostazol. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 12 489 patients initiating SGLT2 inhibitor treatment (51.9% dapagliflozin and 48.1% empagliflozin) and 1075 patients initiating dulaglutide treatment were included. 5 key findings →
Participants: 489 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Subjects taking antihypertensive medication (n = 651, 83.9% of whom took diuretics) had a lower prevalence of dementia than those not taking antihypertensive medication (P<.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 651 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 275,144 initiators of DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas, followed for 750,846 person-years, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a reduced dementia risk compared with sulfonylureas (4.4 vs. 5.7 events per 1000 person-years; HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71-0.85). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adverse drug reactions causing cognitive impairment are an important problem in the elderly. 4 key findings →
Participants: 300 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
47/100
The overall objective of the guideline is to provide up‐to‐date, evidence‐based recommendations for the management of bullous pemphigoid (BP). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients completed a survey assessing statin-associated, cognitive-specific adverse drug reaction (ADR) characteristics, relation of the ADR to specific statin and dose (or potency), and time course of symptom onset and recovery. 5 key findings →
Participants: 128 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The antidiabetic drugs include NE3107, an anti-inflammatory and insulin sensitizer, and the diabetes mainstream drug metformin. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ranolazine and metformin may be frequently co‐administered in subjects with chronic angina and co‐morbid type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These data suggest that AH medications, and specifically potassium-sparing diuretics, are associated with reduced incidence of AD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
39/100
The objective of the review is to assess the effect of metformin on the risk, progression and severity of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, as well as any measures of cognitive performance or impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall 47 trials, 38 animal and 9 human, were isolated for inclusion in this review. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Increasing attention is being paid to inappropriate medication use in nursing homes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In propensity-matched comparator analyses, during the 2 year time-period from treatment initiation, semaglutide was associated with broadly lower neuropsychiatric event risk than metformin, SGLT2 inhibitors, and DPP-4 inhibitors. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 63,215 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 2,577,000 Veterans (mean age, 63 years; 4.5% female; 65% White; 15% Black), 10% initiated ARBs and 90% initiated ACEIs. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,577,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 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 →