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
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Participants age 60-85 years deemed cognitively unimpaired were disclosed an elevated or not elevated brain amyloid result by a certified clinician. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,686 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Twenty-one patients received at least one drug dose (9 GAL/NIM and 12 GAL/PLA). 3 key findings →
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
56/100
This study will provide clinically relevant data on the likelihood and time to relapse, and predictors of relapse, in patients switched from risperidone to placebo after response to risperidone treatment. 2 key findings →
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
The cross-over studies did not report results from the first phase. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
A study with a more intensive multidomain intervention might bring further insights on this topic. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,679 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Butylphthalide may restore abnormal organization in structural networks of patients with MCI due to AD, and baseline network metrics could be predictive markers for therapeutic efficacy of butylphthalide. 4 key findings →
Participants: 270 Evidence: low
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
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
ARIA-positive patients had significantly higher Fazekas scores compared with ARIA-negative patients (1.37 versus 1.0; P = .0262), indicating a greater DWMH burden. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
56/100
Patients on galantamine, compared with those on placebo, experienced benefits in cognitive function and instrumental and basic activities of daily living. 4 key findings →
Participants: 386 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the sertraline-treated group 9 patients (38%) were full responders and 11 (46%) were partial responders compared with 3 (20%) and 4 (15%), respectively, in the placebo-treated group (P =.007). 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
55/100
These data suggest significant treatment benefits of donepezil in early-stage Alzheimer disease, supporting the initiation of therapy early in the disease course to improve daily cognitive functioning. 3 key findings →
Participants: 96 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
55/100
Practitioners are keen to use snoezelen in dementia care, and some encouraging results have been documented in the area of promoting adaptive behaviours (e.g. The list of trials was compared with those identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The NutriAlz program had no effect on functional decline in Alzheimer disease patients living at home over one year, but reduced the risk for malnutrition, as recommendations concerning diet and exercise were provided. 2 key findings →
Participants: 448 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 102 607 individuals in the study, 56 559 (55%) were women (median age, 58 years [IQR, 47-67 years]). 5 key findings →
Participants: 607 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increased circulating cholesterol has been long linked to an increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), and is now linked to an increased risk of developing Alzheimer s disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The efficacy of the dopaminergic substance Memantine was studied in severe cases of senile dementia of the Alzheimer type using a randomized single blind trial. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
55/100
L-deprenyl did appear to have a slight effect on a single measure of psychopathology, the BPRS. 2 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 27,380 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.
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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →