28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
LY450139 dihydrate, a gamma-secretase inhibitor, was studied in a randomized, controlled trial of 70 patients with Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 70 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Sertraline did not demonstrate efficacy for the treatment depression symptoms in patients with AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 67 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There was no difference between groups in time to emergence of agitation or psychosis (Cox proportional hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .88). 3 key findings →
Participants: 122 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A distribution-based approach using data included in a systematic review approximated known MCIDs. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 12,449 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Intensive treatment was associated with a small but statistically significant greater decrease in hippocampal volume compared with standard treatment, consistent with the observation that intensive treatment is associated with greater decreases in total brain volume. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,267 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This randomized clinical trial demonstrated the positive effects of rTMS on cognitive and functional performance, and the plastic changes in the hippocampal-cortical network. 5 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 16 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 32.6 (4.4) years; 9 participants were women, and 7 were men. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The non-linear function indicates that a higher dose is not necessarily better in multidomain interventions. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 749 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After controlling for the baseline AES-C score, site, and comedication with donepezil or galantamine, the mean change in the AES-C score between the bupropion and placebo groups was not statistically significant (mean change, 2.22; 95% CI, -0.47 to 4.91; P = .11). 4 key findings →
Participants: 108 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a proportion of patients, dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) copathology, which is linked to accelerated cognitive decline and more extensive cortical atrophy. 5 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Nine phase 3 RCT cohorts from 8 eligible studies were identified, analyzing data from 6,315 patients. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,315 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These findings suggest medication-specific educational mailings targeting patients with AD or ADRD and their clinicians are not effective in reducing the use of high-risk medications. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 787 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No significant differences were noted between the two treatments in patients with PDD (3·6 with memantine vs 3·8 with placebo, -0·1 [-0·6 to 0·3]; p=0·576) or in the total population (3·5 with memantine vs 3·8 with placebo, -0·3 [-0·7 to 0·1]; p=0·120). 4 key findings →
Participants: 199 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cholinergic deficits might contribute to vascular cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
Participants: 86 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our results suggest that the risk-benefit profile of mAbs remains unclear. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In 2021, aducanumab, an immunotherapy targeting amyloid-β, was approved for Alzheimer's disease (AD) by the US Food and Drug Administration thanks to positive results on a putative biological surrogate marker. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The amyloid cascade model of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD) is well supported in observational studies. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between July 2023 and January 2025, 169 patients were screened and 86 initiated lecanemab treatment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 31 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, escalating dose trial explored the safety and efficacy of tideglusib, an inhibitor of glycogen synthase kinase-3, in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
According to CDR-SB measurements, lecanemab showed effectiveness in reducing brain amyloid and cognitive decline, with a change from baseline of 1.21. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-nine RCTs were included. Donanemab and lecanemab ranked among the most effective treatments for improving cognitive function (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale - Sum of Boxes P-scores: 0.88 and 0.77) and daily activities (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Activities of Daily Living P-scores: 0.85 and 0.90), based on network meta-analysis findings. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab (Kisunla) is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody specifically targeting a modified form of β-amyloid found predominantly within plaques (characterized as N-terminal pyroglutamate Aβ). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All drugs improved the cognitive function, with the effect value ranging from -1.23 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.30) for 20 mg memantine to -3.29 (95% CI -4.14 to -2.45) for 32 mg galantamine. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects millions of people worldwide. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with low-dose donepezil, galantamine use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.60-1.18), cardiovascular serious adverse events (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.98), and entry into a residential care facility (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.89). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →