27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The drug did not prevent clinical progression in a trial involving patients with mild-to-moderate dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,454 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Verubecestat did not reduce cognitive or functional decline in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease and was associated with treatment-related adverse events. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,958 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results, together with previous studies, suggest that memantine represents a new approach for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 203 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among 2218 AMARANTH patients, the mean (SD) age was 71.3 (7.1) years, and 1177 of 2218 (53.1%) were women. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 6,871 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dose group efficacy required a significant benefit over placebo for the primary end point and 1 or more key secondary end points. 4 key findings →
Participants: 933 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this 10-week, double-blind, fixed-dose study, elderly institutionalized patients with dementia and agitation were randomized (3:3:2) to quetiapine 200mg/day, 100mg/day, or placebo. 2 key findings →
Participants: 117 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
Primary clinical efficacy outcomes were not significant. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Adverse effects offset advantages in the efficacy of atypical antipsychotic drugs for the treatment of psychosis, aggression, or agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study examined the efficacy and safety of memantine monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 350 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Twenty-four-week, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The trial did not show efficacy of GbE, however, the lack of decline of the placebo patients may have compromised the sensitivity of the trial to detect a treatment effect. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
All treatment groups showed improvement in measures of psychosis without significant differences between them when planned comparisons were performed. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This multicenter trial showed no benefit of divalproex sodium for treatment for agitation in dementia at a mean dose of 800 mg/day over 6 weeks. 3 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There were no differences in measures of effectiveness between initiation of active treatments or placebo (which represented watchful waiting) but the placebo group had significantly lower health care costs. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 421 Evidence: high
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
We describe the first large-scale, potentially label-enabling clinical trial of a preclinical treatment for ADAD. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 300 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This controlled study showed significant short-term efficacy of carbamazepine for agitation with generally good safety and tolerability. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Laypersons at heightened risk of Alzheimer disease discriminate among research scenarios of varying risks and burdens. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Behavior Rating Scale for Dementia provides a standardized, reliable measure that can be administered to caregivers of demented subjects. 1 key finding →
Participants: 303 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Researchers have begun to characterize the subtle biological and cognitive processes that precede the clinical onset of Alzheimer disease (AD), and to set the stage for accelerated evaluation of experimental treatments to delay the onset, reduce the risk of, or completely prevent clinical decline. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The groups of individuals who agreed to participate in the imaging substudies of AD trials were remarkably comparable to the comparison groups at baseline on a wide range of demographic and clinical measures; there seems to be a minimal effect of self-selection bias. 4 key findings →
Participants: 166 Evidence: high
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 →