Galantamine failed to significantly influence conversion to dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,048 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
81/100
As the first 1-year, multinational, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of a cholinesterase inhibitor in AD, these data support donepezil as a well tolerated and effective long-term treatment for patients with AD, with benefits over placebo on global assessment, cognition, and ADL. 3 key findings →
Participants: 286 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
This study is based on 2 cross-sectional surveys of people aged 75 years or over conducted in central Stockholm: the Kungsholmen Project (KP) (1987-1989, n = 1,700) and the Swedish National study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) (2001-2004, n = 1,575). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,700 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
At baseline, 2,279 dementia-free participants with available blood samples were included (median age 72 (interquartile range, 61-81) years; 62% female). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 2,279 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
66/100
The relationship between serum total cholesterol (TC) and dementia seems to be bidirectional. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,449 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The predictive validity of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) for identifying future Alzheimer disease (AD) cases is improved in the presence of anxiety symptoms. 1 key finding →
Participants: 185 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A population-based longitudinal study in Sweden, the Kungsholmen Project A random sample of 370 nondemented persons, aged 75 years and older and not treated with B(12) and folate, was followed for 3 years to detect incident AD cases. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
(1) The incidence of dementia increases with age, even in the oldest age groups; (2) women have a higher risk of developing dementia than men, especially at very old ages; (3) this pattern is mainly due to the age and gender distribution of Alzheimer's disease, rather than vascular dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,473 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of dementia, and VaD in particular, in very old people. 4 key findings →
Participants: 350 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Elderly patients with diabetes develop more extensive vascular pathology, which alone or together with AD-type pathology (particularly in APOE ε4 carriers) results in increased dementia risk. 2 key findings →
Participants: 553 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The association between low education and dementia is probably not explained by the unhealthy lifestyles of the less educated compared with higher educated persons. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,449 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although possession of the APOE epsilon4 allele is a risk factor for AD in old age, it does not modify the progression of the disease during the preclinical period. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Brain zinc accumulation is a prominent feature of advanced Alzheimer disease (AD) and is biochemically linked to brain amyloid beta-peptide accumulation and dementia severity in AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study suggests that both tHcy and holoTC may be involved in the development of AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 271 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →