27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The use of donepezil produced statistically significant improvements in ADAS-cog, CIBIC plus, and Mini-Mental State Examination scores, relative to placebo. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 468 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) has developed brief, comprehensive, and reliable batteries of clinical and neuropsychological tests for assessment of patients with the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 350 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients with AD continue to show detectable disease progression over time, but treatment with donepezil for 1 year was associated with a 38% reduction in the risk of functional decline compared with placebo. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients treated with LY451395 did not show a statistically significant separation from patients taking placebo on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, the primary outcome measure. 3 key findings →
Participants: 90 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The field of aging and dementia is focusing on the characterization of the earliest stages of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study measured the annual rate of cognitive change in patients with Alzheimer's disease and determined the effects of clinical variables on that rate. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 111 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Addition of ATX to ongoing cholinesterase-inhibitor therapy was generally well tolerated but did not significantly improve cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Participants: 92 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cholinesterase inhibitors benefit patients with AD (Standard), although the average benefit appears small; vitamin E likely delays the time to clinical worsening (Guideline); selegiline, other antioxidants, anti-inflammatories, and estrogen require further study. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Blood-based biomarkers are highly associated with amyloid PET/CSF results in diverse populations enrolled at clinical trial sites. 3 key findings →
Participants: 417 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A central tenet of Alzheimer disease (AD) is the loss of cortical cholinergic function and cholinergic markers in postmortem brain specimens. 4 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Prior studies report that subjects with neuropathologic evidence of AD and concomitant brain infarcts had poorer cognitive function and higher frequency of dementia than those with AD alone. 4 key findings →
Participants: 74 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Little information exists on the performance of black versus white patients with Alzheimer's disease on neuropsychological tests for dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 830 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The cognitive assessment protocol of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) was designed to evaluate the reliability and validity of cognitive assessment measures that might be valuable additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) or other concise batteries used in antidementia drug trials. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that NPs are among the earliest neuropathological lesions in AD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →