alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 33 studies by Gauthier S (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Other authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Efficacy and safety of tau-aggregation inhibitor therapy in patients with mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 3 trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2016-11-16

The prespecified primary analyses did not show any treatment benefit at either of the doses tested for the coprimary outcomes (change in ADAS-Cog score compared with control [n=354, 6·32, 95% CI 5·31-7·34]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day [n=257] -0·02, -1·60 to 1·56, p=0·9834, 125 mg LMTM twice a day [n=250] -0·43, -2·06 to 1·20, p=0·9323; change in ADCS-ADL score compared with control [-8·22, 95% CI -9·63 to -6·82]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day -0·93, -3·12 to 1·26, p=0·8659; 125 mg LMTM twice a day -0·34, -2·61 to 1·93, p=0·9479). 3 key findings →

Participants: 354 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Tramiprosate in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease - a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre study (the Alphase Study)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Archives of medical science : AMS 2011-02-01

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

Efficacy of galantamine in probable vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease combined with cerebrovascular disease: a randomised trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2002-04-01

Vascular dementia is the second commonest form of dementia, and vascular factors contribute to the development of dementia in many patients with Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Participants: 396 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Effect of tramiprosate in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: exploratory analyses of the MRI sub-group of the Alphase study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. The journal of nutrition, health & aging 2009-06-01

The efficacy, safety and disease-modification of tramiprosate (homotaurine)were investigated in a recently completed large-scale Phase III clinical study in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD), the Alphase study. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 109 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Mild cognitive impairment: a concept in evolution

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Journal of internal medicine 2014-03-01

The construct of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has evolved over the past 10 years since the publication of the new MCI definition at the Key Symposium in 2003, but the core criteria have remained unchanged. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Efficacy of donepezil on maintenance of activities of daily living in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease and the effect on caregiver burden

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003-06-01

The ADL benefits in AD patients treated with donepezil were associated with less caregiving time and lower levels of caregiver stress. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

The effects of donepezil in Alzheimer's disease - results from a multinational trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 1999-05-01

Donepezil has been shown to be well tolerated and to improve cognition and global function in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Clinical, imaging and blood biomarker outcomes in a Phase 3 clinical trial of tau aggregation inhibitor hydromethylthionine mesylate in mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia due to Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease 2026-01-21

It was not possible to demonstrate significant differences on the co-primary clinical endpoints (ADAS-cog 11 and ADCS-ADL 23 ) at 52 weeks due to symptomatic activity in the control arm. 5 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 598 Evidence: null result

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Cerebrospinal fluid phosphorylated tau, visinin-like protein-1, and chitinase-3-like protein 1 in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Translational neurodegeneration 2018-09-10

Visinin-like protein-1 (VILIP-1) and chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1 or YKL-40) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are newly discovered markers indicating neuronal damage and microglial activation, respectively. 4 key findings →

Participants: 121 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Why has therapy development for dementia failed in the last two decades?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2015-12-19

The success rate of the pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) for dementia drugs has been abysmally low, in the last two decades. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Cerebrospinal fluid synaptosomal-associated protein 25 is a key player in synaptic degeneration in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2018-08-16

There is accumulating evidence that synaptic loss precedes neuronal loss and correlates best with impaired memory formation in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 52 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Identifying incipient dementia individuals using machine learning and amyloid imaging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2017-07-11

Identifying individuals destined to develop Alzheimer's dementia within time frames acceptable for clinical trials constitutes an important challenge to design studies to test emerging disease-modifying therapies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Clinical Meaningfulness in Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trials. A Report from the EU-US CTAD Task Force

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2024-10-01

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

Remote cognitive and behavioral assessment: Report of the Alzheimer Society of Canada Task Force on dementia care best practices for COVID-19

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2020-09-22

Despite challenges, current literature and practice support implementation of telemedicine assessments for patients with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ Change the filters

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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed