27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This is the pivotal Phase 3 trial for donanemab in 1,736 people with early symptomatic Alzheimer's. Donanemab slowed decline on a combined cognitive/functional scale (iADRS) by about 22-35% relative to placebo over 76 weeks, depending on tau levels at baseline. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,736 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Citalopram is effective in treating agitation in Alzheimer's dementia (AD), but it is associated with cognitive and cardiac risks, likely due to its R-enantiomer. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 173 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23,202 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 236 eligible participants screened, 43 were excluded. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 142 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No significant differences were found in the primary efficacy analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 234 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Avagacestat dosed at 25 and 50 mg daily was relatively well tolerated and had low discontinuation rates. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 209 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among 1736 randomized participants (mean age, 73.0 years; 996 [57.4%] women; 1182 [68.1%] with low/medium tau pathology and 552 [31.8%] with high tau pathology), 1320 (76%) completed the trial. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 860 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Outcome measures were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of covariance. 2 key findings →
Participants: 64 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Furthermore, the dramatic and favorable effects on disturbing behaviors in AD suggest a novel approach for treatment of noncognitive symptoms. 1 key finding →
Participants: 343 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 54 adults assessed for eligibility, 11 did not meet study criteria, and 9 declined to participate. 2 key findings →
Participants: 34 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although significant treatment effects were not seen in the primary efficacy measures, outcomes on secondary measures suggest promising directions for further evaluation of donepezil treatment in patients with MCI. 2 key findings →
Participants: 133 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The primary planned analyses did not show a significant treatment effect, but were confounded by unexplained variance. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,052 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although prespecified criteria for testing treatment effects were not met, these data suggest a potential treatment effect in patients with mild AD treated with high-dose crenezumab. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 184 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Avagacestat did not demonstrate efficacy and was associated with adverse dose-limiting effects. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 263 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In cognitively intact individuals at risk, sustained treatment with naproxen sodium 220 mg twice daily increases frequency of adverse health effects but does not reduce apparent progression of presymptomatic AD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 195 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Based on the results of the prespecified coprimary endpoints, this study was negative. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 624 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At 6 months, galantamine significantly improved cognition and global function. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 636 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients' mean age was 73.6 years (range 48 to 92 years). 2 key findings →
Participants: 144 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although conclusions are limited by small sample size and the possibility of a type II error, results suggest that short-term estrogen therapy does not improve symptoms of most women with AD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A significant drug-placebo difference on the ADAS-Cog12 favoring GV-971 was present at each measurement time point, measurable at the week 4 visit and continuing throughout the trial. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 818 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In both phases, men were encouraged to visit their physician if the screen results indicated possible cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,540 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Is it possible to prevent atrophy of key brain regions related to cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease (AD)? 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Previous Cochrane reviews have considered the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in both Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,236 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study reports the findings of the first large-scale Phase III investigator-driven clinical trial to slow the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease with a dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blocker, nilvadipine. 4 key findings →
Participants: 577 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At randomization, the mean age is 72, 50% female, 77% with CDR-global score 0.5, and mean MMSE score 23.8. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 464 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 →