Seventeen studies (5373 patients) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,373 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
At week 32, compared with patients assigned to placebo (59 assessed), those assigned to rivastigmine (55 assessed) had improved step time variability for normal walking (ratio of geometric means 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p=0.002) and the simple dual task (0.79; 0.62-0.99; p=0.045). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 130 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Exogenous low dose melatonin administered nightly to elderly patients admitted to acute care may represent a potential protective agent against delirium. 3 key findings →
Participants: 145 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aerobic exercise in early AD is associated with benefits in functional ability. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 68 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The experimental paradigm was feasible and acceptable. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 95 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among patients with agitated delirium receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, the addition of dexmedetomidine to standard care compared with standard care alone (placebo) resulted in more ventilator-free hours at 7 days. 5 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Quality of the reporting of trials varied. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,353 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
In this 10-week, double-blind, fixed-dose study, elderly institutionalized patients with dementia and agitation were randomized (3:3:2) to quetiapine 200mg/day, 100mg/day, or placebo. 2 key findings →
Participants: 117 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Postvaccination meningoencephalitis occurred without clear relation to serum anti-Abeta42 antibody titers.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In older adults, trazodone is frequently prescribed for anxiety and insomnia owing to its perceived greater tolerability in comparison with benzodiazepines. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 123 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The low likelihood of patients with cAF in general practice remaining on treatment long-term indicates that not all benefits as observed in clinical trials may be achieved in usual clinical practice. 4 key findings →
Participants: 41 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 45,651 patients, 311 delirium events occurred among continuous users and 84 among early discontinuers, corresponding to incidence rates of 66 and 112 events per 10,000 person-years, respectively. 5 key findings →
Participants: 45,651 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
TPM may be useful in patients with mood disorders unresponsive to traditional therapy and warrants further clinical investigation. 1 key finding →
Participants: 58 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the 116 patients studied, 62.1% exhibited effective responses, 12.1% showed ineffectiveness, and 25.9% had uncertain outcomes with valproate therapy. 5 key findings →
Participants: 116 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Neuropsychiatric symptoms such as agitation and delusions occur commonly in elderly patients with dementia and often cause significant distress. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A lighting intervention, tailored to increase daytime circadian stimulation, can be used to increase sleep quality and improve behavior in patients with ADRD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Twenty-nine individuals were enrolled, 3 were women (10.3 %), age 76.3 ± 6 years (mean ± SD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plain Language SummaryWhat is this summary about? 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This pilot study investigated the impact of melatonin administration as a clinical intervention for improving sleep and alleviating sundowning in 11 elderly nursing home residents who suffer from dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 27,380 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.
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 27,380 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 →