28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Between July 22, 2014, and May 17, 2018, 261 participants entered the open-label phase. 211 were randomly assigned losartan (n=105) or placebo (n=106). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 105 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ninety-five participant dyads (PPA mean baseline age: 67.1; 48% female) from four countries were enrolled and randomized. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A systematic approach to the management of pain significantly reduced agitation in residents of nursing homes with moderate to severe dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This double-blind randomized trial does not support the hypothesis that the use of soy protein supplement containing isoflavones improves cognitive function, bone mineral density, or plasma lipids in healthy postmenopausal women when started at the age of 60 years or later. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 175 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with cognitive profiles consistent with probable executive MCI were identified using simple assessments of global cognition, memory and executive functions in a community-dwelling older population. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 161 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Promotion of person centred care and good practice in the management of patients with dementia with behavioural symptoms provides an effective alternative to neuroleptics. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The beneficial effect of DBS on motor function was stable and comparable by target over 36 months. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 89 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To test whether antibodies against beta-amyloid are effective in slowing progression of Alzheimer's disease, we assessed cognitive functions in 30 patients who received a prime and a booster immunization of aggregated Abeta(42) over a 1 year period in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The PROMPPT trial will assess whether review by trained clinical pharmacists working in general practices can support safe opioid reduction without compromising pain management and quality of life. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between October 2021 and June 2022, 53 candidates were assessed; 29 met eligibility criteria and were randomised. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 29 Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eli Lilly's newer anti-amyloid antibody remternetug showed fast, dose-dependent removal of amyloid plaques in a small early trial: three-quarters of people getting the higher doses had their brain amyloid drop below the threshold used to call a scan 'positive' within about six months. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 41 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this trial, $5 and $25 noncontingent monetary incentives included in mailed recruitment letters did not produce a detectable improvement in response among ADRD caregiving dyads. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 103 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older adults in senior living communities (SLCs) often face barriers to maintaining emotional well-being and family ties. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 90 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This provides the first evidence in older adults with cognitive concerns that higher step counts are associated with fewer depressive but more anxiety symptoms. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 629 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A 12-week HIIT+RT intervention was more effective than HIIT alone in increasing the thickness/volume signature in individuals with CAD, yet no differences were observed compared to UC and the interventions did not affect the GMMD signature. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 105 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a recent open-label, single-arm study, vortioxetine, an antidepressant, was associated with improved cognitive function in patients with MCI, however, no placebo-controlled studies have been conducted to support these findings. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
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 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.
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 →