28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This study used administrative data from a large health care insurer in the southeast United States to describe the utilization pattern and health care outcomes of antipsychotic drug use in community-dwelling elders with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donepezil hydrochloride is the most widely prescribed drug for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients treated with citalopram or perphenazine showed statistically significant improvement on several Neurobehavioral Rating Scale factor scores. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Food and Drug Administration–approved information and public advertisements belie neurodegenerative risks for second-generation antipsychotics in affective illness. 1 key finding →
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
2.1 Case İnformation A 78 years old man was referred to the cardiology clinic because of mild dyspnea. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
High placebo response is an obstacle in developing drugs to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s disease (AAD), a prevalent and burdensome symptom. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
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
These findings indicate that cognitive impairment may mark a population vulnerable to medication complexity rather than independently driving DDI risk, with polypharmacy emerging as the principal modifiable determinant. 4 key findings →
Participants: 101 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More than one-quarter of residents with ADRD remain untreated with guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy, and treatment varied significantly by non-clinical predictors. 5 key findings →
Participants: 359,801 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Polypharmacy and PIMs are highly prevalent in end-of-life elderly cancer patients. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 183 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both classes act on neuronal calcium signaling, raising the question of whether their combined use is associated with greater cognitive risk than gabapentin alone. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33,791 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Medication adherence in older adults was strongly influenced by cognitive impairment, gender, health literacy and cohabitation. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Brexpiprazole was associated with a distinct neuropsychiatric adverse-event reporting pattern in Alzheimer’s disease compared with psychiatric indications, with the most consistent signals observed for delirium, falls, and agitation. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 22,025,599 individuals screened, 2,051,275 were eligible; matched cohorts ranged from 10,113 to 857,773, with median follow-up of 4.7 to 7.2 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The high incidence of new prescribing, as well as the lack of deprescribing, points to unmet needs and a role for more proactive medication review. 3 key findings →
Participants: 3,713 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The observed protective effect may be explained by vascular and neuroprotective mechanisms unique to PDE5 inhibitors. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Late-onset unexplained epilepsy is a potential harbinger of dementia, likely driven by network hyperexcitability that facilitates amyloid-β release and tau propagation. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In older adults with HFpEF, finerenone conferred renal benefit without a detectable short-term cognitive signal. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,660 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Rare confirmed initiation prevented a clinically interpretable admission-time strategy estimate. 3 key findings →
Participants: 3,706 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For mild to moderately severe AD, the results of the study suggested that all three treatments were beneficial when assessed using cognitive outcome measures. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 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.
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 →