Feasibility was demonstrated with regard to recruitment, attrition, and treatment characteristics. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This study showed that some deficits on IC domains, as measured by simple screening tests and questions, can be associated with higher healthcare costs. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 442 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In preclinical studies, it has demonstrated vascular protective and antioxidant effects, with emerging evidence suggesting potential neuroprotective properties. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 185 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher plasma carotenoid concentrations were associated with slower cognitive decline in APOE ε4 carriers, potentially mitigating genetic risk. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 442 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One hundred forty-nine carers enrolled in the study. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 149 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intervention group showed less discomfort (-1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.88 to -0.23) and fewer sentinel events (-0.40; 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.16), specifically pneumonia (-0.08; 95% CI = -0.14, -0.02). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 116 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Oral benfotiamine is safe and potentially efficacious in improving cognitive outcomes among persons with MCI and mild AD. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APPLE-Tree has a high probability of being cost-effective for a 1-point NTB gain, a difference previously associated with a three-fold reduction in 5-year dementia risk. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 746 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results provide evidence for the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extended nursing roles in dementia care, demonstrating that extended nursing roles reduce unmet needs and improve quality of life. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 417 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients and their study partners who were enrolled in a clinical trial supported proxy consent both for themselves and as a matter of policy. 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 findings have implications for clinical practice and suggest that presence of a caregiver may be an important modifying variable on patient outcomes to examine in future research. 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
This sample of the older general public generally supported a policy of surrogate consent for AD research at baseline. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 503 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study suggests that initiation of a low dose of antihypertensive treatment does not significantly increase the risk of OH in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 255 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive performance in mild AD improved following tACS, with increased FC within cortical networks and between the hippocampus and specific cortical regions. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 23 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
One hundred two (37.9%) participants were amyloid positive. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 269 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Sixteen men and 24 women diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease participated in the study. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The number of studies examining ECHO and ECHO-like models of medical tele-education has been modest compared with the scope and scale of implementation throughout the USA and internationally. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Public Psychiatric Hospital Rekem, Belgium. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
61/100
This study included 54 articles, comprising 14,446 participants from 10 countries. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 54 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This randomized clinical trial found that ADRD screening in PC was not associated with improvement in family member health-related quality of life, caregiver preparedness, or caregiving self-efficacy. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,808 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The effects on depression and other outcomes were consistent with those observed for in-person programs, suggesting the viability of well-designed automated intervention. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 274 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Longer follow-up and testing across diverse LEP communities are needed to assess diagnosis, treatment initiation, and caregiver trajectories. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT Participants: 287 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The protective effect of statin on Alzheimer disease (AD) is still controversial, probably due to the debate about when to start the use of statin and the lack of any large-scale randomized evidence that actually supports the hypothesis. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics and in outcome variables (HHI, GSES, and SF-12v2 mental component score and physical component score) between users and nonusers. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 101 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
- 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →