27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Selection criteria All unconfounded, double-blind, randomized controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was compared with placebo for patients with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The treatment group had no EM after intervention completion (assessed at 3-month follow-up), a significantly lower rate than the control group (treatment = 0%, control = 23.1%, p = 0.010). 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 80 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Baseline assessments were conducted on 133 family caregivers of veterans living with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 67 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the 23 studies, 10 (43.5%) focused on mobile health apps, 8 (34.8%) on video consultations, and 5 (21.7%) on remote monitoring tools. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The enrollment rate was acceptable despite pandemic related challenges (53/60 target recruitment sample). 5 key findings →
Participants: 53 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this randomized trial of dementia care programs, no significant differences existed between health system-based and community-based care interventions nor between either active intervention or usual care regarding patient behavioral symptoms and caregiver strain. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 2,176 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our analysis suggests that previous estimates of dementia burden, based on smaller datasets, might have underestimated the burden of dementia in China. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 340,247 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Nineteen interventional studies, including 3,985 participants, were identified. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,985 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caregivers often prioritize the needs of the care recipient and neglect their own health needs. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 243 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The detailed estimates in this study constitute the best current basis for policymaking, planning, and allocation of health and welfare resources in dementia care. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Physicians have a responsibility to recognize caregiver burden. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
MRI features of cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD), i.e. white matter hyperintensities, lacunes, microbleeds, perivascular spaces, and cerebral atrophy, may be associated with clinical events, but the strength of these associations remains unclear. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 16,458 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We randomly assigned patients with a computer-generated sequence in a 4:1 ratio overall to receive AADvac1 or placebo. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Comparable modest reductions in agitation occurred in patients receiving haloperidol, trazodone, BMT, and placebo. 4 key findings →
Participants: 149 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Community occupational therapy intervention for patients with dementia and their care givers is successful and cost effective, especially in terms of informal care giving. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 135 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among community-dwelling patients with moderate to severe dementia and their caregivers, dementia palliative care, compared with usual care, did not significantly improve patients' neuropsychiatric symptoms through 24 months. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 201 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 780 PWDs (56.3% female; mean [SD] age, 78.1 [9.9] years) and 780 caregivers (70.9% female; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.0] years) lived in California (n = 452), Nebraska (n = 284), or Iowa (n = 44). 2 key findings →
Participants: 452 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Occupational therapy improved patients' daily functioning and reduced the burden on the care giver, despite the patients' limited learning ability. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 135 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) p-tau181 (tau phosphorylated at threonine 181) is an established biomarker of Alzheimer's disease (AD), reflecting abnormal tau metabolism in the brain. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 194 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prevalence and incidence estimates associated with MCI vary greatly both between definitions and within a definition across the 42 publications. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,705 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
RO emphasised the engagement of nursing assistants in a hopeful, therapeutic process but became associated with a rigid, confrontational approach to people with dementia, leading to its use becoming less and less common. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 718 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 5,588 records identified, we included 123 studies involving 35,513 participants from 32 countries. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 123 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This large GWAS of WMH burden in community-based cohorts of individuals of European descent identifies a novel locus on chromosome 17. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,024 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We undertook subgroup analysis by setting (community versus care home) and by modality (individual versus group). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with primarily noncancer illness, palliative care, compared with usual care, was statistically significantly associated with less acute health care use and modestly lower symptom burden, but there was no significant difference in quality of life. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 4,068 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 →