28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease, and examined the relationships between plasma donepezil concentration, red blood cell acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity and clinical response. 5 key findings →
Participants: 161 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No evidence of efficacy of 2 mg or 8 mg RSG XR monotherapy in cognition or global function was detected in the APOE-ε4-negative or other analysis populations. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 693 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Treatment with ChEIs results in a modest but significant therapeutic effect and modestly but significantly higher rates of adverse events and discontinuation of treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The target dose of 10 cm2 rivastigmine patch provides efficacy similar to the highest doses of capsules with a superior tolerability profile. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this 12-week trial, donepezil was not more effective than placebo in treating agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 272 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A long-term CMI in ChEI-treated early Alzheimer disease patients produced additional mood and cognitive benefits. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A program of counseling and support can substantially increase the time spouse-caregivers are able to care for AD patients at home, particularly during the early to middle stages of dementia when nursing home placement is generally least appropriate. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Greater access to effective programs of counseling and support could yield considerable benefits for caregivers, patients with Alzheimer disease, and society. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These data suggest a revision of the original ADAPT hypothesis that NSAIDs reduce AD risk, as follows: NSAIDs have an adverse effect in later stages of AD pathogenesis, whereas asymptomatic individuals treated with conventional NSAIDs such as naproxen experience reduced AD incidence, but only after 2 to 3 years. 5 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An intensive and long-term exercise program had beneficial effects on the physical functioning of patients with AD without increasing the total costs of health and social services or causing any significant adverse effects. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These results support the safety and efficacy of memantine for the treatment of mild to moderate AD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 201 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among older persons with AMD, oral supplementation with LCPUFAs or lutein/zeaxanthin had no statistically significant effect on cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Participants: 89 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite undetectable TPI-287 levels in CSF, CSF biomarkers demonstrated decreased chitinase-3-like protein-1 (YKL-40) levels in the 4RT treatment arm (mean [SD], -8.4 [26.0] ng/mL) compared with placebo (mean [SD], 10.4 [42.3] ng/mL; median difference, -14.6 [95% CI, -30.0 to 0.2] ng/mL; P = .048, Mann-Whitney test). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 157 participants initially assessed, 137 were enrolled in the Age-Well clinical trial, and 127 were analyzed in this study. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 157 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
change from baseline in Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite score. 5 key findings →
Participants: 189 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 200 participants, 99 were assigned to methylphenidate and 101 to placebo. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled studies at lower risk of bias comparing ChEI treatment with placebo or usual treatment, for 6 months or longer, in patients with dementia of any type. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 79,153 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vascular dementia is the second commonest form of dementia, and vascular factors contribute to the development of dementia in many patients with Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Participants: 396 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Tacrine, the first of the cholinesterase inhibitors to undergo extensive trials for this purpose, was associated with significant adverse effects including hepatotoxicity. 4 key findings →
Participants: 3,232 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Gantenerumab significantly reduced PiB-PET uptake overall and in most regions and showed no changes in FDG-PET or MRI measures. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pooled MMRM analyses showed a statistically significant effect of solanezumab across cognitive and functional outcome measures. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study included 524,975 older adults with dementia who were incident users of ChEIs (donepezil 80.72%, rivastigmine 16.41%, galantamine 2.87%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 524,975 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study included 47,059 older adults with dementia who were incident users of AChEIs. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 47,059 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study cohort consisted of 178,441 older adults with dementia who were new users of ChEIs. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 23,433 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean (SD) time between the date of randomization into WHI and the last Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MSE) for all WHIMS participants was 4.05 (1.19) years. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,229 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 28,580 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.
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 →