31,380 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
There were 813 participants in CREAD (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [8.2] years; 483 female and 330 male) and 806 in CREAD2 (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.7] years; 456 female and 350 male). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 3,664 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 544 eligible participants (241 women and 303 men), the mean (SD) age was 74.3 (8.2) years, and the mean (SD) sMMSE score was 26.4 (1.9). 1 key finding →
Participants: 554 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 2218 AMARANTH patients, the mean (SD) age was 71.3 (7.1) years, and 1177 of 2218 (53.1%) were women. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 6,871 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In participants with prodromal to mild AD in this randomized clinical trial, semorinemab did not slow clinical AD progression compared with placebo throughout the 73-week study period but did demonstrate an acceptable and well-tolerated safety profile. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 422 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Elevated brain iron observed in AD has been associated with accelerated cognitive decline and may be a tractable drug target. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 167 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 432 Evidence: high
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
The primary study randomized 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 female participants [53.3%]). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Outpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. 5 key findings →
Participants: 584 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 54 adults assessed for eligibility, 11 did not meet study criteria, and 9 declined to participate. 2 key findings →
Participants: 34 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Compared with participants who learned that they had a not elevated amyloid result, individuals who learned of an elevated amyloid result were no more likely to experience short-term increases in depression (mean [SD] change in the Geriatric Depression Scale score, 0.02 [1.3] vs 0.04 [1.3]; P = .90), anxiety (mean [SD] change in State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score, -0.02 [3.2] vs -0.15 [3.0]; P = .65), or suicidality (mean [SD] change in the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale score, 0.0 [0.4] vs -0.01 [0.5]; P = .67). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,167 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-six randomized clinical trials were eligible for inclusion (N = 164 531 participants), of which 23 trials (n = 160 191 participants) reported the incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment, including 12 trials evaluating SGLT2is, 10 trials evaluating GLP-1RAs, and 1 trial evaluating pioglitazone (no trials of metformin were identified). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 164 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite undetectable TPI-287 levels in CSF, CSF biomarkers demonstrated decreased chitinase-3-like protein-1 (YKL-40) levels in the 4RT treatment arm (mean [SD], -8.4 [26.0] ng/mL) compared with placebo (mean [SD], 10.4 [42.3] ng/mL; median difference, -14.6 [95% CI, -30.0 to 0.2] ng/mL; P = .048, Mann-Whitney test). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 157 participants initially assessed, 137 were enrolled in the Age-Well clinical trial, and 127 were analyzed in this study. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 157 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
change from baseline in Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite score. 5 key findings →
Participants: 189 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 200 participants, 99 were assigned to methylphenidate and 101 to placebo. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There was no difference in the age (mean [SD], 74.17 [7.96] years), sex (12 women [67%]), or baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score (mean [SD], 19.39 [3.24]) between the crossover (n = 9) and open-label groups (n = 9). 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 80 participants (mean [SD] age, lithium: 72.93 [8.77] years; placebo: 71.22 [6.47] years; 56% female), none of the 6 coprimary outcomes met the prespecified significance threshold. 2 key findings →
Participants: 170 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The most significant adverse events associated with these therapies are infusion-related reactions and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) with edema/effusion (ARIA-E) and/or hemorrhage/hemosiderin deposition (ARIA-H). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 234 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Intensive treatment was associated with a small but statistically significant greater decrease in hippocampal volume compared with standard treatment, consistent with the observation that intensive treatment is associated with greater decreases in total brain volume. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,267 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 16 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 32.6 (4.4) years; 9 participants were women, and 7 were men. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sleep deprivation, or prolonged wakefulness, interferes with a physiological morning decrease in Aβ42. 1 key finding →
Participants: 26 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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