Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 8,257 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We report the case of a 79-year-old woman with Alzheimer's disease who participated in a Phase III randomized controlled trial called CLARITY-AD testing the experimental drug lecanemab. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The risk-benefit profile of anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear, especially concerning their safety and overall effects on AD progression and cognitive function. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 14,980 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results indicate a strong association between WMH and MCH, a common manifestation of cerebral amyloid angiopathy and ARIA-H. These results suggest that increased WMH volume may represent an early sign of vessel amyloidosis, likely prior to the emergence of MCH. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundDonanemab, a monoclonal antibody targeting amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, has shown the ability to reduce cerebral amyloid burden in early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 2,054 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We screened 18,884 papers and included 135 studies. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 135 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A moderate to high intensity aerobic and strength exercise training programme does not slow cognitive impairment in people with mild to moderate dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT Participants: 494 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 1795 participants from Core and 1612 participants with at least one dose of lecanemab (Core + OLE) were included. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00056225. 1 key finding →
Participants: 340 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
78/100
These findings reveal the potential for anti-Aβ therapies to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy and provide new insight into the adverse impact of ARIA. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 8,062 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
78/100
There was no evidence that aspirin was effective in reducing risk of dementia, MCI, or cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 19,114 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dose group efficacy required a significant benefit over placebo for the primary end point and 1 or more key secondary end points. 4 key findings →
Participants: 933 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
The outcomes were better among patients treated with rivastigmine than among those who received placebo; however, the differences between these two groups were moderate and similar to those reported in trials of rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 541 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study was stopped early for futility, but dose-dependent effects observed in exploratory analyses on select clinical and biomarker endpoints suggest that higher dosing with gantenerumab may be necessary to achieve clinical efficacy. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,089 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ARIA was detected more often on MRI scans when every scan was reviewed by trained neuroradiologists and results adjudicated. 4 key findings →
Participants: 242 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three donepezil, two galantamine, one rivastigmine, and two memantine trials, comprising 3093 patients on the study drugs and 2090 patients on placebo, met the selection criteria. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,093 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total, 994 patients received cholinesterase inhibitor treatment (rivastigmine, n = 495; donepezil, n = 499), and 57.9% of patients completed the study. 5 key findings →
Participants: 495 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Six months of high-intensity aerobic exercise had sex-specific effects on cognition, glucose metabolism, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and trophic activity despite comparable gains in cardiorespiratory fitness and body fat reduction. 3 key findings →
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
One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 4005) examined the direct effect of screening for cognitive impairment on patient outcomes, including potential harms, finding no significant differences in health-related quality of life at 12 months (effect size, 0.009 [95% CI, -0.063 to 0.080]). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,005 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older adults with higher triglyceride levels within the normal to high-normal range had a lower dementia risk and slower cognitive decline over time compared with individuals with lower triglyceride levels. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 13,976 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
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →