27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Dementia has been increasingly more recognized to be a common feature in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), especially in old age. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The target dose of 10 cm2 rivastigmine patch provides efficacy similar to the highest doses of capsules with a superior tolerability profile. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was no difference between groups in time to emergence of agitation or psychosis (Cox proportional hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .88). 3 key findings →
Participants: 122 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Quetiapine was well-tolerated and did not worsen parkinsonism. 3 key findings →
Participants: 23 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The primary outcome was difference in the change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy scores for oxytocin versus placebo periods in the per-protocol population after 6 weeks of treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 94 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this Seminar, we highlight the main developments in the field of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) Consortium has revised criteria for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB incorporating new information about the core clinical features and suggesting improved methods to assess them. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The NINCDS-ADRDA and the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The neuropsychologic test battery from the Uniform Data Set (UDS) of the Alzheimer's Disease Centers (ADC) program of the National Institute on Aging consists of brief measures of attention, processing speed, executive function, episodic memory, and language. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease with a complex and heterogeneous pathophysiology. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This initial report describes the ongoing 4-year longitudinal study and provides baseline results, which confirm the feasibility of obtaining home-based clinical information via mail or telephone. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 644 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The 2020 pipeline has innovations in clinical trials and treatment targets that provide hope for greater success in AD drug development programs. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The current conceptualization of Alzheimer disease (AD) is driven by the amyloid hypothesis, in which a deterministic chain of events leads from amyloid deposition and then tau deposition to neurodegeneration and progressive cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The critical role of primary care clinicians (PCCs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention, diagnosis and management must evolve as new treatment paradigms and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) emerge. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The AD drug development pipeline has agents representing a substantial array of treatment mechanisms and targets. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared to the 2023 pipeline, there are fewer trials (164 vs. 187), fewer drugs (127 vs. 141), fewer new chemical entities (88 vs. 101), and a similar number of repurposed agents (39 vs. 40). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 56 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The AD drug development pipeline is slightly larger in 2018 than in 2017. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results suggest that risperidone may affect the CSF profile of AD biomarkers indicating more amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The AD drug development pipeline is advancing agents directed at a variety of target processes. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 36 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The AD drug development pipeline has 105 agents divided among phase I, phase II, and phase III. 2 key findings →
Participants: 54,073 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pipeline analysis shows that target biological processes are more diversified, biomarkers are more regularly used, and repurposed agents are being explored to determine their utility for the treatment of AD. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Drug repositioning and repurposing can enhance traditional drug development efforts and could accelerate the identification of new treatments for individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia and mild cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early and accurate diagnosis of MCI provides a window of opportunity to improve the outcomes using a multimodal management approach including lifestyle risk factor modification and consideration of the multinutrient Souvenaid. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article outlines methodological enhancements to better evaluate treatment approaches in future registration trials and provides an algorithm for improving the treatment of these patients in nursing home and non-nursing home settings. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent positive results of three phase III anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody trials are transforming the landscape of disease-modifying therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease, following several decades of failures. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →