This study investigated the association of statin use with sepsis risk in patients with dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 308 Evidence: moderate
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.
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
The total sample consisted of 33 clinically diagnosed AD patients taking galantamine 8 mg/d for 6 months. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate
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
Prior qualitative literature reviews about the use of neuroleptics in dementia suggest that they are "modestly effective" in treating agitation and that no single neuroleptic is better than another. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A large number of non-pharmacological interventions for BPSD were identified. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
61/100
Thirty-three patients were included: the revaluation of anti-dementia treatment led to 22 discontinuations and 11 continuations. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Following reports of bleeding upon Ginkgo intake, we assessed whether Ginkgo extract EGb 761® affects coagulation or platelet function or increases the risk of bleeding. 5 key findings →
Participants: 169 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were no significant differences in age, sex, or education between AChEIs alone and combination groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 148 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive functioning, mood, and health-related QOL were significantly improved following a 24-week course of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor donepezil. 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 35 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Though these findings cannot prove causality, and we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding, they provide more evidence of the risk of using these drugs in older patients, reinforcing the concept that they should not be used in the absence of clear need. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings suggest that long-term use of BZDs is associated with an increased risk for dementia, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear, and further investigations are needed. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 779 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 1343 patients with MMSE scores were identified for internal validation and 285 [21.22%] took the drug recommended. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,772 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean age of 35,570 new users of cholinesterase inhibitors (30,174 users of donepezil, 1,176 users of galantamine, 4,220 users of rivastigmine) was 82; 75% were women, and 82% were white. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
Although modest, the changes induced by EGb were objectively measured by the ADAS-Cog and were of sufficient magnitude to be recognized by the caregivers in the GERRI. 5 key findings →
Participants: 309 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium is a complex clinical syndrome characterised by disturbed consciousness, cognitive function, or perception. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At the end of the study cognitive function had deteriorated among those in the placebo group. 4 key findings →
Participants: 725 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine are able to stabilize or slow decline in cognition, function, behavior, and global change. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neither quetiapine nor rivastigmine are effective in the treatment of agitation in people with dementia in institutional care. 4 key findings →
Participants: 93 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
57/100
Taking more anticholinergic medications is associated with greater risk of hospitalization for confusion or dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified 107,931 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as an AL resident and 323,766 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as a LSNH resident with dementia, including 1,923,867 person-months and 4,984,405 person-months, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donepezil was well tolerated and most adverse events were mild. 5 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
56/100
Patients on galantamine, compared with those on placebo, experienced benefits in cognitive function and instrumental and basic activities of daily living. 4 key findings →
Participants: 386 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To determine if the risk of hip fracture difference between persons receiving benzodiazepines with long (greater than or equal to 24 hours) or short (less than 24 hours) elimination half-lives, we conducted a nested case-control study among residents of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan who were 65 years of age and older. 1 key finding →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
55/100
Gabapentin was the most common medication and was associated with 33.0% of polypharmacy-days. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
10 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 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
- DT‐01‐04: The efficacy of RVT‐101, a 5‐ht6 receptor antagonist, as an adjunct to donepezil in adults with mild‐to‐moderate Alzheimer's disease: Completer analysis of a phase 2b study
- Oral tetrahydroaminoacridine in long-term treatment of senile dementia, Alzheimer type
- Early strong anticholinergic initiation and 30-day mortality in older inpatients with dementia: a target trial emulation
- Adverse drug reactions associated with global cognitive impairment in elderly persons
- Cognitive and Renal Outcomes of Finerenone in Older Adults With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Real-World Cohort Study
- A Novel Formulation: Donepezil Patch
- British Association of Dermatologists’ guidelines for the management of bullous pemphigoid 2012
- Galantamine: a review of its use in Alzheimer's disease
- Are cholinesterase inhibitors effective in the management of the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia in Alzheimer's disease? A systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine
- Safety and efficacy of pioglitazone for the delay of cognitive impairment in people at risk of Alzheimer's disease (TOMMORROW): a prognostic biomarker study and a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
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 →