27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
There were 21 603 to 51 236 patients per year (total for 2010-2020, 381 488 patients) in the OAC-eligible incident AF cohort (mean [SD] age, 77.2 [6.1] to 77.4 [6.8] years; 13 871 [51.8%] to 22 901 [49.8%] women). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 236 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The advent of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), from symptomatic relief to disease modification. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study evaluates the efficacy, safety, and economics of galantamine in the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients, and to provide evidence-based reference for optimizing drug selection, dosing strategies, and reimbursement policies in clinical practice. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From both commercial and Medicare Advantage perspectives, mirabegron was the most clinically effective treatment, while oxybutynin was the least expensive. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Use of pharmacological treatments is one possible modifiable risk factor for cognitive disorders. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 282,858 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
To estimate the risk of ischaemic stroke associated with antidopaminergic antiemetic (ADA) use. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,612 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Using the time-dependent Cox model, the adjusted dementia rate ratios (95% confidence-interval) among current and former users were 0.90(0.70-1.16) and 0.89 (0.71-1.10), respectively. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab, an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody, has been approved for treatment of early Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 137 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Choline alfoscerate, a cholinergic precursor with limited evidence of efficacy in dementia management, has been used for various cognitive impairments in Korea. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study on Medicare patients with AF, Black race, low-income subsidy, and dual eligibility were found to be associated with delayed OAC initiation, suggesting potential disparities in the care of AF with timely OAC treatment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 446,441 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2018, France withdrew reimbursement for cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) in Alzheimer's disease, citing modest efficacy, lack of long-term benefit, and safety concerns. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We examined the real-world utilization and persistence of rapid acting insulin (RAI) in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes who added RAI to their drug (OAD) regimen. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,734 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab, an amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibody, was recently approved for early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease in South Korea. 5 key findings →
Participants: 112 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Atypical antipsychotics are associated with incident diabetes in older adults without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder QUESTION Question: Is atypical antipsychotic use associated with incident diabetes or hyperlipidaemia in older people without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? 1 key finding →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Uncertainty surrounds cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEIs) effectiveness in mild to moderate Alzheimer Disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,678 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The current study aimed to provide data on the effectiveness of the 10 cm2 rivastigmine patch in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a real-world setting in Taiwan. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
= 314,472) as early OAC initiation. Median age for both cohorts was 78 years. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Anticholinergic medications (ACh) are frequently prescribed to older adults despite being associated with impaired physical functioning. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Accelerated approval of aducanumab for mild Alzheimer's by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 7, 2021, has generated substantial medical, scientific, and ethical controversy. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →