A long-term CMI in ChEI-treated early Alzheimer disease patients produced additional mood and cognitive benefits. 1 key finding →
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.
NPTs emerge as a useful, versatile and potentially cost-effective approach to improve outcomes and QoL in ADRD for both the PWD and CG. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study is an extension of a 28-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of memantine in 252 patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
64/100
Mild cognitive impairment is a syndrome defined as cognitive decline greater than expected for an individual's age and education level but that does not interfere notably with activities of daily life. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Two hundred fifty-two patients (67 percent women; mean age, 76 years) from 32 U.S. centers were enrolled. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Milacemide does not appear to be an effective treatment in enhancing cognition in SDAT patients. 2 key findings →
Participants: 113 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Follow-up occurred during a mean period of 6.8 +/- 3.4 years, and subjects had a mean of 2.9 +/- 1.6 follow-up visits. 3 key findings →
Participants: 213 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebrovascular disease is the second most common cause of acquired cognitive impairment and dementia and contributes to cognitive decline in the neurodegenerative dementias. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cognitive decline associated with old age and consistent with the diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia is a unique clinical syndrome with characteristic phenomena and progression. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We conducted full diagnostic evaluations, including a comprehensive cognitive assessment battery, of a group of 32 elderly subjects with a clinically identified mild cognitive impairment and a group of 32 age-matched and education-matched normal subjects. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These results are approximately 10 times those usually observed with both nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments and indicate substantial benefits with the management program for advanced AD persons. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Study of the hippocampal formation of 82 subjects, including 25 control subjects from 33 to 83 years of age, 34 subjects with Alzheimer disease (AD) from 65 to 89 years of age, and 23 subjects with Down syndrome (DS) from 33 to 72 years of age, revealed hippocampal vasculopathy with fibrosis and calcification (VFC) in 40% of control, 59% of AD, and 4% of DS subjects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Change detected by the MCI-CGIC was associated with baseline clinical severity and with change in clinical ratings over 6 and 12 months, supporting the validity of a CGIC approach in MCI. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The development of FAST is of great importance to clinicians in identifying possibly remediable complications of Alzheimer's disease and distinguishing them from the characteristic progression of the illness. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →