This is the primary Phase 3 Clarity AD trial report for lecanemab. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: moderate
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.
74/100
This is the pivotal Phase 3 trial for donanemab in 1,736 people with early symptomatic Alzheimer's. Donanemab slowed decline on a combined cognitive/functional scale (iADRS) by about 22-35% relative to placebo over 76 weeks, depending on tau levels at baseline. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,736 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The disclosure of APOE genotyping results to adult children of patients with Alzheimer's disease did not result in significant short-term psychological risks. 5 key findings →
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
Overall, we found that probiotic and selenium co-supplementation for 12 weeks to patients with AD improved cognitive function and some metabolic profiles. 5 key findings →
Participants: 27 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Twenty-one depressed patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) were randomized to receive a 6-week treatment with clomipramine or placebo in a study with a double-blind crossover design. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We carried out a double-blind study of a vasopressin-related peptide, DGAVP citrate (Org 5667), in 115 patients with mild dementia, probable Alzheimer's type (DAT). 2 key findings →
Participants: 115 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The score improvement in the global Clinical Dementia Rating (gloCDR) was superior in the active group than placebo (p = 0.023). 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Exercise intensity did not differentially affect cognitive trajectory. 2 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 296 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
72/100
Of the 120 participants (mean age, 71.4 [SD, 8.6] years; 55% were female), 93 (77.5%) completed the trial. 1 key finding →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 120 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Curcumin exhibits neuroprotective activity in preclinical models of the four NDs analysed, acting on six interconnected mechanisms and the gut-brain axis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We treated 17 patients who had moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease with oral tetrahydroaminoacridine (THA), a centrally active anticholinesterase, in a three-phase study. 3 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
155 (85%) patients completed the trial (78 [88%] in dimebon group, 77 [82%] in placebo group). 5 key findings →
Participants: 89 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Huntington's Disease (HD) is a severely debilitating neurodegenerative disorder in which sufferers exhibit different combinations of movement disorders, dementia, and behavioral or psychiatric abnormalities. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The grey matter of the brain contains high levels of the essential nutrient DHA. 1 key finding →
Participants: 285 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The primary outcome was difference in the change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy scores for oxytocin versus placebo periods in the per-protocol population after 6 weeks of treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 94 Evidence: early
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
A simple exercise program, 1 hour twice a week, led to significantly slower decline in ADL score in patients with AD living in a nursing home than routine medical care. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results confirm the efficacy and safety of tacrine in some patients with Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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
The Integrated Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Rating Scale (iADRS) is a composite tool that combines scores from the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the AD Cooperative Study - instrumental Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-iADL). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a double-blind trial, 12 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease were treated for 6 weeks with placebo and 6 weeks with monosialoganglioside (GM1) (100 mg/day i.m.), which potentiates the actions of nerve growth factor. 1 key finding →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Brief Report15 September 1991Postmenopausal Estrogen and Prevention BiasElizabeth Barrett-Connor, MDElizabeth Barrett-Connor, MDAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-115-6-455 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptIn the last decade many investigators reported that postmenopausal women taking estrogen were at reduced risk for cardiovascular disease compared with women not taking estrogen (1). 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This trial tested an antibody targeting tau tangles rather than amyloid plaques, in people with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's. It slowed decline on one cognitive test by 42% compared with placebo, the first time an anti-tau antibody showed any cognitive benefit, but it did not help with daily-function scores, overall dementia staging (CDR-SB), or the MMSE, and it did not reduce tangle buildup seen on tau brain scans. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 272 Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →