This review identified previously published MCIDs for AD trial endpoints. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
AD is likely to be a complex disease driven by multiple factors. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our single-center experience with long-term lecanemab treatment was similar to that observed in clinical trials. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 136 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab slowed cognitive decline versus placebo in mild-to-moderate AD by ADCOMS, CDR-SB, and ADAS-Cog. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundAnti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies offer a treatment strategy for early Alzheimer's disease, but their modest efficacy must be weighed against important safety concerns. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with Alzheimer disease treated with gantenerumab showed significant improvement in the ADAS score, FAQ score, hippocampal volume, and CSF biomarkers compared with those treated with placebo. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Selection criteria Randomized, controlled trials of antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, trazodone, and other antidepressants), compared to either placebo or comparator medications (typical or atypical antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, benzodiazepines, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine or other medications) for treatment of agitation or psychosis in older adults with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 692 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Memantine plus donepezil showed superior outcomes for cognition, global assessment, daily activities, and neuropsychiatric symptoms, but lower acceptability than monotherapy and placebo. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 54 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Median follow-up increased from 2.0 years in the double-blind trial to 3.9 years overall. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,485 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Exercise training for patients with Alzheimer disease combined with teaching caregivers how to manage behavioral problems may help decrease the frailty and behavioral impairment that are often prevalent in patients with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
75/100
Simvastatin had no benefit on the progression of symptoms in individuals with mild to moderate AD despite significant lowering of cholesterol. 4 key findings →
Participants: 406 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the sequential parallel comparison design, 152 patients received dextromethorphan-quinidine and 127 received placebo during the study. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 93 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients taking rivastigmine were significantly less apathetic and anxious, and had fewer delusions and hallucinations while on treatment than controls. 4 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Inclusion criteria were early AD (mini-mental state examination [MMSE] score between 20 and 26 points or Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) score between 10 and 25 points), taking a stable dose of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (donepezil, galantamine, or rivastigmine) for at least 4 months, a modified Hachinski score of 4 points or less, and CT or MRI results that were consistent with AD. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 78 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
72 patients with PDD or DLB were randomly assigned and started treatment: 34 with memantine and 38 with placebo. 56 (78%) completed the study. 2 key findings →
Participants: 72 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
There were 132 846 individuals (mean [SD] age, 80.4 [7.6] years; 61.8% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.5 [4.6]) with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 1, 159 419 individuals (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [7.6] years; 59.7% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.6 [4.7]) with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 2, and 92 328 individuals with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 3 (mean [SD] age, 80.9 [7.7] years; 58.5% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.5 [4.7]). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 846 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SC gantenerumab at doses of up to 1200 mg Q4W was well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings in participants with prodromal Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 154 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
ARIA are not associated with long-term parenchymal reduction; rather, they are linked to a fluid shift from the external space to the ventricles. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Citalopram is effective in treating agitation in Alzheimer's dementia (AD), but it is associated with cognitive and cardiac risks, likely due to its R-enantiomer. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 173 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23,202 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
74/100
No significant differences were found in the primary efficacy analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 234 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
74/100
Among 1736 randomized participants (mean age, 73.0 years; 996 [57.4%] women; 1182 [68.1%] with low/medium tau pathology and 552 [31.8%] with high tau pathology), 1320 (76%) completed the trial. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 860 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Outcome measures were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of covariance. 2 key findings →
Participants: 64 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Furthermore, the dramatic and favorable effects on disturbing behaviors in AD suggest a novel approach for treatment of noncognitive symptoms. 1 key finding →
Participants: 343 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 54 adults assessed for eligibility, 11 did not meet study criteria, and 9 declined to participate. 2 key findings →
Participants: 34 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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events