30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In this meta-analysis of phase III trials in AD, we found that monoclonal antibodies against Aβ induced clinical improvements of small effect sizes, biomarker improvements of large effect sizes, and increases in risk for the hallmark adverse event, ARIA, by a large effect size, when all drugs were pooled together. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 12,585 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BAN2401-G000-201 did not meet the 12-month primary endpoint. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In patients with early Alzheimer's disease, donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 257 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) describes a broad spectrum of cognitive impairments caused by cerebrovascular disease, ranging from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,193 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Pooled evidence from available trials reporting both reduction in amyloid levels and change in cognition suggests that amyloid reduction strategies do not substantially improve cognition. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
In this review of 56 RCTs for AD involving 39 575 participants, 23 348 women (59.0%) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 100 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
These findings suggest that benzoate treatment may improve cognitive function in women with later-phase dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Racial/ethnic groups differed in sources of recruitment, reasons for screen failure, and overall probability of eligibility in a preclinical AD trial. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,945 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Maintaining optimal cognitive functioning throughout the lifespan is a public health priority. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 72 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cluster randomized clinical trial found that despite high adherence to the training, a multicomponent intervention promoting goal-directed care for suspected UTIs and LRIs did not significantly reduce antimicrobial use among nursing home residents with advanced dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our study highlights factors associated with the development of CMHs in individuals with DIAD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 310 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with Alzheimer dementia from the Swedish Dementia Registry starting on ChEIs within 3 months of the dementia diagnosis were included and compared to nontreated patients with Alzheimer dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 11,652 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent neurodegenerative disease in ageing, affecting around 46 million people worldwide but few treatments are currently available. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results indicate that trans-resveratrol has potential neuroprotective roles in the treatment of moderate to mild AD and that its mechanism may involve a reduction in the accumulation and toxicity of Aβ in the brain of patients, thereby reducing neuroinflammation. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 15 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study aimed to examine the therapeutic mechanism of the benefit-finding therapeutic (BFT) intervention that used cognitive reappraisal and alternative thinking to construct positive aspects of caregiving (PAC), in a cluster-randomized controlled trial for Alzheimer caregivers. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This pilot trial aims to explore the feasibility of the trial, verify essential information of its efficacy and safety. 5 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The multi-sectoral collaborative care model proposed in this study integrated resources from several departments, effectively improved the quality of life of patients and their caregivers, and provided a way of care services for 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
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 30,180 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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 (3.4% 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 →