The MAPT Study is the first preventive trial involving multidomain interventions. 2 key findings →
Participants: 300 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
53/100
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was carried out to compare 24-week periods of treatment with 1 g acetyl-l-carnitine twice daily and placebo in the treatment of patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type. 3 key findings →
Participants: 36 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A consent process that addresses the deficits in memory and attention of a patient with AD can improve capacity to give informed consent for early phase AD research. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Selegiline, an inhibitor of monoamine oxidase B, was tested on patients with mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer type. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 482 participants in the safety population, 140 of 158 participants (88.6%) assigned to placebo, 117 of 166 participants (70.5%) to 224 mg of edonerpic maleate, and 120 of 158 participants (76.0%) to 448 mg of edonerpic maleate completed the trial. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 482 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
Improving quality and delivery of care for people with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) requires a comprehensive research agenda that encompasses the entire care continuum. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of this review will determine the efficacy and safety of herbal medicine for AD. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study is the first clinical trial to examine the efficacy of combined physical and cognitive exercise on cognitive function in older ICU survivors with delirium. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
L-deprenyl did not have a measurable impact on behavior or cognitive function over a 2-month period in this group of subjects with mild DAT. 1 key finding →
Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective strategy in some treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our results suggest that risperidone may affect the CSF profile of AD biomarkers indicating more amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The rigorous methodology of the study will hopefully move forward the scientific evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine in treatment of VaD. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 372 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cognitive alterations show greatest correlation with total CGIC. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Two randomized controlled trials were included, one was scale A, and the other was scale B. The rates of abnormal liver function, withdrawal from treatment, and withdrawal due to adverse effects were higher in the treatment group (OR = 7.86, 95%CI: 2.50-24.69; OR = 4.70, 95%CI: 2.61-8.44; and OR = 5.47, 95%CI: 3.01-9.94; respectively) compared with the placebo group. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 710 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant interactions between amyloid status and modifiable risk factors were observed for diabetes (adjusted β = -0.206, p = 0.032), high cholesterol (adjusted β = -0.155, p < 0.001), and physical inactivity (adjusted β = -0.161, p = 0.046), indicating combined effects rather than additive effects on cognitive decline among Aβ+ individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,707 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
This review provides a comprehensive state-of-the-art conceptual review of radiological features, clinical detection and classification challenges, pathophysiology, underlying biological mechanism(s) and risk factors/predictors associated with ARIA. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Slowing the progression of Alzheimer disease (AD) might be the greatest unmet medical need of our time. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this single-dose study, aducanumab demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and linear PK at doses ≤30 mg/kg (clinicaltrials.govNCT01397539). 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our case suggests that ischemic strokes may be a feature of ARIA and highlights the importance of having a high clinical suspicion for seizures in ARIA. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent Phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated its ability to reduce brain amyloid-β (Aβ) load and slow cognitive decline in patients with early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 811 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our study suggests that SSAE-3 and SSAE-5 are valid ARIA-E rating scales for use in routine clinical practice by experienced radiologists in specialized settings. 4 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results of the cost-effectiveness model presented here suggest that donepezil may be cost-effective but additional controlled data on long-term drug efficacy are needed. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At weeks 12 and 24/28, ITT analysis demonstrated that memantine treatment produced statistically significant benefits over placebo treatment in NPI total score (p=0.001 and p=0.008), and in NPI single items: delusions (p=0.007 week 12, p=0.001 week 24/28), hallucinations (p=0.037 week 12), agitation/aggression (p=0.001 week 12, p=0.001 week 24/28), and irritability/lability (p=0.005 week 24/28), LOCF population. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,311 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among nursing home residents with dementia, discontinuing long-term antipsychotic medication use was associated with lower risks of hospitalization, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections, suggesting clinical benefits in this population. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 4,222 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →