Between Jan 26, 2017, and March 6, 2020, 204 participants were recruited and randomised. 5 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 204 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.
BackgroundZervimesine (CT1812) is a first-in-class, brain-penetrant sigma-2 receptor ligand that prevents binding and displaces Aβ42 oligomers from receptors on neuronal synapses. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 153 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mean percentage change in plasma p-tau217 in the SAMe group was an increase of 53.22 (standard deviation [SD] 159.19) compared to 25.34 (SD 94.83) in the placebo group (standardized mean difference 37.58, 95% confidence interval -32.61, 107.76; p = 0.288). 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 63 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between Aug 28, 2013, and Dec 21, 2015, we enrolled 3494 participants (3061 at high risk and 433 at low risk). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 3,494 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blarcamesine, demonstrating a safety profile with no associated neuroimaging adverse events, significantly slowed clinical progression by 36.3% at 48 weeks with blarcamesine group as well as the individual 30 mg (by 34.6%) and 50 mg (by 38.5%) blarcamesine groups vs. placebo on the prespecified primary cognitive endpoint ADAS-Cog13. 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 338 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-three randomized controlled trials were identified evaluating 15,971 participants (9,103 (57%) female). 5 key findings →
Participants: 15,971 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Memantine monotherapy improved cognition, behavior, activities of daily living, global function, and stage of dementia and was well-tolerated by AD patients. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,433 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Galantamine failed to significantly influence conversion to dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,048 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The analysis included 8 randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6547 participants. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,547 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventeen RCTs, comprising 7214 participants, investigated the efficacy of the following drugs: Donepezil, Rivastigmine, Galantamine, Memantine, Ginkgo biloba extract (EGb), Atorvastatin-calcium and Vitamin B in the treatment of AD. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,214 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All patients completed 100%of study visits and infusions. 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From May 13, 2015, to July 22, 2020, 185 participants with Down syndrome were assessed for eligibility and 160 (86%) were randomly assigned either memantine (n=81) or placebo (n=79). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 81 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
81/100
As the first 1-year, multinational, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of a cholinesterase inhibitor in AD, these data support donepezil as a well tolerated and effective long-term treatment for patients with AD, with benefits over placebo on global assessment, cognition, and ADL. 3 key findings →
Participants: 286 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 210 participants were enrolled and 82% completed 26 weeks of treatment. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No significant difference in ADAS-Cog13, CDR Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB), or FAQ scores were found between treatment groups at 3 and 6 months. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between Dec 8, 2009, and Dec 23, 2011, we randomly allocated 278 patients to treatment: 133 to placebo and 145 to idalopirdine. 132 patients in the placebo group and 140 in the experimental group were included in the final analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 278 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Tacrine produced statistically significant, dose-related improvements on objective performance-based tests, clinician- and caregiver-rated global evaluations, and measures of quality of life. 5 key findings →
Participants: 663 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, less than half of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia have shown substantial clinical improvement after follow-up averaging nearly 6 years. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 51,800 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No significant between-group effects of exenatide on ADAS-Cog11 score (p = 0.17) were detected. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We screened 18,884 papers and included 135 studies. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 135 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundPreclinical and clinical evidence suggest that low-dose cannabinoids could ameliorate Alzheimer's disease (AD) signs and symptoms. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The muscarinic receptor agonist xanomeline improved cognition in phase 2 trials in Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with placebo, the amino acid mixture did not improve NPI-12, MMSE, TMT-A and B or CDR scores. 4 key findings →
Participants: 36 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No differences between treated groups and placebo in adverse events or in study completion. 5 key findings →
Participants: 542 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three donepezil, two galantamine, one rivastigmine, and two memantine trials, comprising 3093 patients on the study drugs and 2090 patients on placebo, met the selection criteria. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,093 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
10 of the 271 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.
- Occurrence and Progression of Dementia in a Community Population Aged 75 Years and Older
- Galantamine: a review of its use in Alzheimer's disease
- A randomized, controlled trial of linopirdine in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease
- Drug persistency patterns for patients treated with rivastigmine or donepezil in usual care settings
- A population-based study of dosing and persistence with anti-dementia medications
- Neurological and psychiatric practitioners' views on Alzheimer's disease and treatment thereof
- Aromatherapy as a Safe and Effective Treatment for the Management of Agitation in Severe Dementia
- Donepezil in patients with severe Alzheimer's disease: double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study
- Adverse drug reactions associated with global cognitive impairment in elderly persons
- Validity of diagnostic and drug data in standardized nursing home resident assessments: potential for geriatric pharmacoepidemiology. SAGE Study Group. Systematic Assessment of Geriatric drug use via Epidemiology
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 →