32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
There is increasing evidence to suggest that physical activity has a protective effect on brain functioning in older people. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Little is known about the effectiveness of a psychosocial behaviour management programme on home-dwelling people with dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The intervention is oral simvastatin 40 mg at night for 12 months, versus placebo. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The recently published results of the 18-month randomized controlled trial of lecanemab, reporting the efficacy of the drug in slowing the progression of early Alzheimer disease, quickly led to approval by the FDA and widespread acceptance of lecanemab treatment. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Recent evidence suggests that Web-based interventions have the potential to support caregivers by decreasing caregiver stress and burden. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were no randomized trials found in the search. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Defining the primary cognitive endpoint is a major decision for Alzheimer's disease preventive trials. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The multi-sectoral collaborative care model proposed in this study integrated resources from several departments, effectively improved the quality of life of patients and their caregivers, and provided a way of care services for patients with Alzheimer Disease. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Persons with dementia suffer different losses at different stages of the disease and therefore accurate assessment of abilities and losses is critical to assist the person in planning for their future and for care needs. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Validation of the safety and efficacy of ECT in patients with advanced AD with refractory agitation and aggression is necessary. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Study findings will reveal the feasibility of delivering an 8-week multidomain health education intervention for primary prevention of dementia in midlife and will provide preliminary evidence of mechanisms of change. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results indicate that incorporating MI can positively influence cognitive status, emotional status, and the quality of life in older adults diagnosed with early-stage dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 55 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Healthcare providers identified caregivers in most of the sample, but less than 50% assessed their well-being and needs. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 211 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Psychoeducational program is effective in reducing the family caregivers' perceived burden. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The purpose of this study was to examine the beneficial effects of a new cognitive intervention program designed for the care and prevention of dementia, namely Learning Therapy. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Care networks ranged from 1 to 8 members. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examined the effectiveness of three different learning methods: trial and error learning (TE), errorless learning (EL) and learning by modeling with spaced retrieval (MR) on the relearning process of IADL in mild-to-moderately severe Alzheimer's Dementia (AD) patients (n=52), using a 6-weeks randomized controlled trial design. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Use of potentially inappropriate medications in Australian nursing home residents with advanced dementia is common. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 65 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Rivastigmine therapy for PDD is associated with significant tradeoffs in efficacy and adverse effects. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 541 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
SYGRAVA is the first randomized trial to determine whether programmable ASDs reduce complications of drainage compared to fixed ASDs in patients with iNPH. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 306 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lack of supportive evidence for SSRIs as cognition enhancers or disease modifiers in AD is the result of omissions in clinical trial design, as opposed to reporting of negative outcomes. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The present study showed the potential use of IY intervention in reducing stress, anxiety, and depression. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
When poor SRH was present we found no increased risk for NH placement or death among elderly people with mild AD. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Published results from the AN1792 trial may have underestimated the effect of vaccine on progression of cerebral atrophy among patients with an antibody response to the vaccine. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There were no randomized trials found in the search. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events
Last updated