27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Aducanumab was granted accelerated approval with a conflicting evidence base, near-unanimous Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee vote to reject approval, and a widely criticized launch price of $56,000 per year. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Lecanemab was generally well-tolerated during the 6-month lecanemab-only treatment period. 5 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 43 trials of 327,264 participants with 42,016 major adverse cardiovascular events where included. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among 558 amnestic MCI participants (168 ChEI users), ChEI users exhibited higher risk of progression to AD dementia (hazard ratio = 1.77, 95% confidence interval: 1.15 to 2.73, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
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
Before donanemab was approved, researchers built a computer model simulating lifetime outcomes for Alzheimer's patients to estimate whether aducanumab and donanemab were reasonably priced for the health benefit they provide. 4 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The future price of lecanemab in European countries is unknown. 2 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This review highlights a great heterogeneity in RCTs design of drugs for A/A in AD and some key methodological issues such as definition of A/A, choice of outcome measures and caregiver participation that could be addressed by an expert consensus to optimize future trials design. 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results from 5 patients with eAD treated with LD-WBRT (10 Gy in 5 fractions) demonstrate a positive safety profile and provide preliminary, hypothesis-generating data to suggest that this treatment stabilizes or improves cognition. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We expect to demonstrate that personalized TMS intervention has a measurable positive impact in cognition, emotion, daily living activities and brain connectivity, thus representing a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of two doses of anapsos in comparison with placebo on cognitive performance, brain bioelectrical activity pattern and cerebral hemodynamic parameters in patients with mild to moderate senile dementia of vascular type and Alzheimer type. 3 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Data available on the relationship between salivary function and specific drug therapy are sparse. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This article primarily describes the design of a monocentre, randomized, doubleblind trial to be conducted in France to evaluate the effect of the combination of tDCS and cognitive training on apathy compared to a group treated exclusively by cognitive training (sham tDCS). 3 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The differential response to cholinergic challenge in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer patients may reflect a difference in the functional status of the cholinergic system between both groups, which is in line with recent results showing a differential clinical response to cholinergic treatment. 1 key finding →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence suggests that Alzheimer disease (AD) begins as a disorder of synaptic function, caused in part by increased levels of amyloid beta-peptide 1-42 (Abeta42). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We review the implications of the recently approved aducanumab amyloid-β immunotherapy for treating Alzheimer disease with comorbid cerebral amyloid angiopathy. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that destroys patient memory and cognition, communication ability with the social environment and the ability to carry out daily activities. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 43 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study investigated whether patients with mild to moderately severe dementia or possible Alzheimer's disease (AD) with Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) Baseline scores of 10-24 would improve when treated with near-infrared photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Infectious agents have been proposed as potential causes of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Lecanemab reduced amyloid PET in symptomatic participants with DIAD at Week 24. 3 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Clinical trials of anti-amyloid-β (Aβ) monoclonal antibodies in Alzheimer disease (AD) infer target engagement from Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) and/or fluid biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant median Centiloid reduction of 30.9 was observed, with a 24.1% amyloid PET negativity rate after six months. 3 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At 3 years, donanemab slowed disease progression on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR)-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) in early-start participants versus a weighted ADNI control (-1.2 points; 95 % confidence interval [CI], -1.7, -0.7). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Animal studies indicate that Dang Gui Shao Yao San (DGSYS) may enhance cognitive function in VaD models through mechanisms such as antioxidation and the enhancement of cerebral blood flow. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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
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 →