carbonyl groups in proteins and hydroperoxides in plasma have similar values in both treatment groups at the beginning of the study. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The mindfulness based neuropsychological program showed better cognitive and functional stability, as well as significant improvement in the psychopathological condition of mild to moderate Alzheimer' patients. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
More open debates of practical experiences from different trial centres and sponsors are essential for optimizing trial designs and improving conditions for participants. 2 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Clinical and experimental evidence suggest that dopaminergic transmission is impaired in FTD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 128 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The short and long term effects of CEIs were evaluated in 135 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease relative to 135 patients who were never exposed to CEIs matched by age, education, duration of the symptoms, and cognitive status. 4 key findings →
Participants: 135 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cross-sectional study examines lecanemeb update among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment and evaluates whether there are disparities among potentially eligible patients. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab reduced clinical decline by roughly 27% over placebo, with ARIA-E in 12.6% of treated patients;donanemab slowed decline by about 35%, with ARIA-E near 24%. 4 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three trajectory classes were identified: stable, slow decliners, and fast decliners. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four thousand four hundred eighty-six participants were included (mean age 71.3 ± 4.7 years, 30% participants Aβ+, 59% female). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ARIA-H represents a spectrum of MRI findings due to haemosiderin deposition that appears to be related to impaired vascular integrity. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 262 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The emergence of monoclonal antibody (MABs) drugs since the FDA approval of lecanemab has resulted in dramatic changes in the clinical approach and management of early-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 165 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although APOE ε2 is known to be protective against Alzheimer's disease, it has also been shown to increase risk for hemorrhage with cerebral amyloid angiopathy. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study compared the ADRs of Lecanemab and Aducanumab, revealing that ARIA was the most common AE for both drugs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During lecanemab treatment for AD, it is essential to fully understand the mechanisms, imaging characteristics, and management strategies of ARIA. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The phase III program for Auvelity, showed that the drug was well tolerated with the most common side effects being dizziness, headache, and dry mouth. 86 Another novel antidepressant agent approved in 2023 is zuranolone (Zurzuvae). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 407 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The dominant theory of Alzheimer disease (AD) has been that amyloid-β (Aβ) accumulation in the brain is the initial cause of the degeneration leading to cognitive and functional deficits. 3 key findings →
Participants: 144 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson's disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that affects over 1% of population over age 60. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
AChEI therapy had a significant effect on the percentage of stage 1 (p = 0.01) and stage 2 (p = 0.03) sleep. 5 key findings →
Participants: 41 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In patients treated up to 36 months, amyloid plaque levels continued to decrease in a dose- and time-dependent manner, with levels in the 10 mg/kg fixed-dose group reaching and remaining below a quantitative cut-point discriminating a positive/negative scan. 1 Reduced amyloid plaque levels were also observed in patients switched from placebo to aducanumab during the LTE. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 392 patients were enrolled in HARMONY; 49 patients with PDD and 27 patients with DLB were included in the open-label safety analysis, of whom 46 met response criteria and were randomized to receive pimavanserin (n = 22) or placebo (n = 24) during the double-blind period. 4 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 76 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For the 2 vitamin E epidemiological studies, even in 2005, 50% of citing articles remained favorable. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The authors performed a 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial of carbamazepine (400 mg/day) with 21 agitated subjects (16 completers) who had been treated unsuccessfully with antipsychotics. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients with nonspouse caregivers less frequently participate in AD dementia trials. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Laypersons at heightened risk of Alzheimer disease discriminate among research scenarios of varying risks and burdens. 3 key findings →
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 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 →