30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
ARIA is an adverse event associated with donanemab treatment that requires safety monitoring. 4 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 3,030 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 3285 included participants, the mean (SD) age was 70.4 (7.45) years; 1706 participants (52%) were female, 2661 (81%) had mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease, and 1777 (54%) used symptomatic medications for Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among persons with early Alzheimer's disease, the use of gantenerumab led to a lower amyloid plaque burden than placebo at 116 weeks but was not associated with slower clinical decline. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 980 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In patients with early Alzheimer's disease, donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 257 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results show that in addition to APOE ε4 allele count, severity of Aβ neuropathology and comorbid cerebrovascular pathology may be relevant for clinicians prescribing anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies for early AD and developing individualized safety monitoring plans. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 985 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 1736 randomized participants (mean age, 73.0 years; 996 [57.4%] women; 1182 [68.1%] with low/medium tau pathology and 552 [31.8%] with high tau pathology), 1320 (76%) completed the trial. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 860 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although significant treatment effects were not seen in the primary efficacy measures, outcomes on secondary measures suggest promising directions for further evaluation of donepezil treatment in patients with MCI. 2 key findings →
Participants: 133 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Avagacestat did not demonstrate efficacy and was associated with adverse dose-limiting effects. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 263 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results support the safety and efficacy of memantine for the treatment of mild to moderate AD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 201 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Primary clinical efficacy outcomes were not significant. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The dual primary efficacy endpoint was not reached. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This cluster randomized clinical trial found that despite high adherence to the training, a multicomponent intervention promoting goal-directed care for suspected UTIs and LRIs did not significantly reduce antimicrobial use among nursing home residents with advanced dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We investigated the effect of crenezumab, a humanized anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) immunoglobulin (Ig)G4 monoclonal antibody, on biomarkers of amyloid pathology, neurodegeneration, and disease progression in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 26 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found no benefit to low-flow CSF shunting in subjects with mild to severe Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 215 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our pilot studies (National Institutes of Health [NIH] stage 1A) have shown that MHB is feasible, acceptable, and associated with improvement in lifestyle behavior and cognitive outcomes. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 225 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this national case-control study of nursing home residents with ADRD receiving hospice care, initiation of benzodiazepine or antipsychotic use was associated with increased 180-day mortality. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control Participants: 139,103 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Memantine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, is approved in the United States and Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer disease (AD) and has also been investigated in patients with mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 117 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Donanemab (Kisunla®), an IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting N-terminal pyroglutamate-modified forms of amyloid-β, is approved in the United States for treatment of early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study evaluates the quantile-aggregation method using both simulated data and publicly available Alzheimer disease randomized trial data. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Donepezil was relatively well tolerated; adverse events were consistent with current labeling. 2 key findings →
Participants: 974 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
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
Additional study of mechanisms of action and methods for titrating stimulation parameters will be needed to determine if DBS has potential as an AD treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 42 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
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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