28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Anodal tDCS+CS delays cognitive decline (ADAS-cog change) to a greater extent than sham tDCS+CS (-3.4±1.1 vs. -1.7±0.4; p=.03). 3 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Setup and daily use of mHealth technology appears to be feasible for a person with cognitive impairment with the help of a partner, but increasing daily step counts over 8 weeks was not achieved. 1 key finding →
Participants: 21 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
In a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 40 patients with a mean age of 68 (+/- 12.5) years suffering from moderate dementia (Alzheimer, vascular, or mixed type) according to DSM-III-R criteria were included. 2 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
The efficacy of the inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is moderated and some patients do not respond to these treatments. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The study will provide evidence for evaluating and understanding the role of electroacupuncture in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Semantic-lexical retrieval and lexical search may represent distinct aspects of semantic memory. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results do not support claims for the efficacy of nizatidine in over-the-counter dosages as a means of preventing symptom progression in AD. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
An eight-week course of IVIG totaling 2 g/kg in MCI is safe but is not sufficient to sustain an initial reduction in brain atrophy or a temporary delay in conversion to dementia at five years. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
A substantial difference in the type of therapeutics researched was observed, with anti-amyloid and anti-tau RCTs being more likely to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry compared with neurotransmitter or other RCTs (anti-amyloid or anti-tau, 68 of 71 [95.8%]; neurotransmitter, 52 of 69 [77.6%]; other, 33 of 52 [63.5%]). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Recent developments of PET amyloid ligands have made it possible to visualize the presence of Aβ deposition in the brain of living participants and to assess the consequences especially in individuals with no objective sign of cognitive deficits. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The hypothesis that amyloid deposition is the leading cause of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is supported by findings in transgenic animal models and forms the basis of clinical trials of anti-amyloid agents. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) is an international registry of individuals at risk for developing autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab (Leqembi®) was recently approved by health authorities in the United States, Japan, and China to treat early Alzheimer's disease (AD), including patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease upon confirmation of amyloid beta pathology. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,641 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Upon further refinement and validation, the VWD model could inform strategies for dosing and ARIA monitoring in individuals with an ARIA-E history. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 112 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Efforts to use plasma levels of Abeta peptides as AD biomarkers or disease-staging scales have failed. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ninety-four proteins differentiated in the high-risk group compared to low-risk (p < 0.05), none surviving FDR correction. 5 key findings →
Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients on galantamine had longer mean persistence and better adherence compared with patients on donepezil, with a hazard ratio for discontinuation of 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-0.96] and a relative risk for good adherence of 1.01 (95% CI 1.002-1.03). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.
1,036 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →