27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 10,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean CDR-SB score at baseline was approximately 3.2 in both groups. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among patients with mild to moderate AD, 2000 IU/d of alpha tocopherol compared with placebo resulted in slower functional decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 152 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 544 eligible participants (241 women and 303 men), the mean (SD) age was 74.3 (8.2) years, and the mean (SD) sMMSE score was 26.4 (1.9). 1 key finding →
Participants: 554 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Median follow-up by intention to treat was 2.0 years. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,180 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In patients with early Alzheimer's disease, donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 257 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 8,257 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 14 placebo-controlled trials of elderly patients with dementia reporting a total global outcome score that includes symptoms such as psychosis, mood alterations, and aggression, small but statistically significant effects sizes ranging from 0.12 and 0.20 were observed for aripiprazole, olanzapine, and risperidone. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist and antidiabetic drug, has shown neuroprotective effects in animal models. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 204 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A moderate to high intensity aerobic and strength exercise training programme does not slow cognitive impairment in people with mild to moderate dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT Participants: 494 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 1795 participants from Core and 1612 participants with at least one dose of lecanemab (Core + OLE) were included. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00056225. 1 key finding →
Participants: 340 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 2218 AMARANTH patients, the mean (SD) age was 71.3 (7.1) years, and 1177 of 2218 (53.1%) were women. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 6,871 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In participants with prodromal to mild AD in this randomized clinical trial, semorinemab did not slow clinical AD progression compared with placebo throughout the 73-week study period but did demonstrate an acceptable and well-tolerated safety profile. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 422 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There was no evidence that aspirin was effective in reducing risk of dementia, MCI, or cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 19,114 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dose group efficacy required a significant benefit over placebo for the primary end point and 1 or more key secondary end points. 4 key findings →
Participants: 933 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Elevated brain iron observed in AD has been associated with accelerated cognitive decline and may be a tractable drug target. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 167 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The outcomes were better among patients treated with rivastigmine than among those who received placebo; however, the differences between these two groups were moderate and similar to those reported in trials of rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 541 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study was stopped early for futility, but dose-dependent effects observed in exploratory analyses on select clinical and biomarker endpoints suggest that higher dosing with gantenerumab may be necessary to achieve clinical efficacy. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,089 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, some (like tacrine) are associated with adverse effects such as hepatotoxicity, but donepezil (E2020, Aricept) is safer. 5 key findings →
Participants: 4,365 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Tacrine, the first of the cholinesterase inhibitors to undergo extensive trials for this purpose, was associated with significant adverse effects including hepatotoxicity. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,370 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
A 28% increase in CSF DHA and 43% increase in CSF EPA were observed in the DHA treatment arm compared to placebo (mean difference for DHA (95% CI): 0.08 µg/mL (0.05, 0.10), p<0.0001; mean difference for EPA: 0.008 µg/mL (0.004, 0.011), p<0.0001). 2 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 432 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results show that in addition to APOE ε4 allele count, severity of Aβ neuropathology and comorbid cerebrovascular pathology may be relevant for clinicians prescribing anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies for early AD and developing individualized safety monitoring plans. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 985 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
10 of the 795 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.
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 →