Anti-dementia medications are widely prescribed to patients with Alzheimer's dementia (AD) in South Korea. 5 key findings →
Participants: 8,653 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Between January 2006 and December 2010, 20,729 patients aged >70 years received a prescription for an AD medication. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20,729 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Crenezumab is a humanized anti-abeta monoclonal antibody in development for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 433 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SCarlet RoAD (NCT01224106; WN25203), a Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-year study of gantenerumab in prodromal AD, was the first global registration-enabling study using biomarker screening for entry and a single clinical endpoint for outcome. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 312 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
55/100
Baseline demographics were similar between the treatment groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 144 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Guidelines recommend limiting antipsychotic treatment to short-term use ( Methods Using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, linked with hospital and mortality data from Jan 1, 1998, to March 31, 2021, we emulated two sets of target trials, one after 12 weeks of antipsychotic treatment and another after 24 weeks of antipsychotic treatment, to compare continuing treatment versus tapering treatment and continuing treatment versus abrupt discontinuation of treatment. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 24,822 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Citicoline has been extensively used for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders associated with head trauma, stroke, brain aging, cerebrovascular pathology and Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
54/100
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
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a central nervous system disorder characterized by the presence of neurofibrillary tangles, neuritic plaques and dystrophic neurones in susceptible areas of the brain. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Forty-eight patients were randomized to treatment with either topiramate or risperidone, and 41 patients (21 of 25 in topiramate group and 20 of 23 in risperidone group) completed the trial. 4 key findings →
Participants: 41 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Studies have shown that donepezil could reduce the AD assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) score in MCI patients and improve the patient's attention and speed of response; however, it also has many side effects. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Treatment outcomes in CitAD showed modest, although statistically significant, influence of genetic variation at HTR2A and HTR2C loci. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Observational studies and pilot trials suggest that metformin may help prevent cognitive decline in neurodegenerative disorders. 3 key findings →
Participants: 326 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer disease (AD) is one of the most common diseases among the older adults. 5 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combined NF-acupuncture therapy, and expect that it will serve as the basis for the use of NF together with acupuncture in the clinical setting. 1 key finding →
Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We are currently in the recruitment and data collection phase. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,307 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
Our data support the hypothesis that the pathogenesis of CAA-ri may be mediated by a selective autoimmune reaction against cerebrovascular Aβ, directly related to autoantibody concentration and soluble Aβ. 1 key finding →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this short-term study in patients with Alzheimer's disease who were selected for apparent responsiveness to tacrine, treatment with tacrine resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the decline of cognitive function, although this reduction was not large enough to be detected by the study physicians' global assessments of the patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 215 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
54/100
Patients who started ChEI therapy after the introduction of the coverage policy had a significantly longer persistence. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 74 studies containing 92 cases were found of MDs related to ACHEIs. 5 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome measures (MMSE and ADAS-Cog) was observed with drug therapy at 36 weeks, at which point all groups had lost, on average, 1 point on the MMSE and gained 2-3 points on the ADAS-Cog scale compared with baseline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 938 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The authors estimated the effects of each of the three commonly used drugs for Alzheimer disease (donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine) in terms of predefined clinical outcomes and trial completion rates, by dosing level, and described differences among them. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.
1,037 records (3.5% 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 →