Reduction of amyloid via amyloid-targeting therapies may result in clinical benefit. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,582 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The primary study randomized 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 female participants [53.3%]). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 4-week USMART modestly improved information retrieval in older people with MCI, and was well accepted with minimal technical support. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Antibody administration was well tolerated with doses up to 400 mg weekly. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and 163 to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. 18 withdrew (12 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and six assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy); thus, 151 in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group. 121 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy completed the 12 week questionnaire versus 131 assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 14 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In APOE4/4 homozygotes receiving 150mg BID tramiprosate, efficacy in the traditional Mild AD patients (MMSE 20-26) was higher than the overall group (MMSE 16-26) and efficacy in the Mild patients (MMSE 22-26) was highest. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 147 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No beneficial effects were observed in the dual primary outcome measures for the 2 IVIg doses tested. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 390 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
A total of 1795 participants were enrolled (lecanemab:898; placebo:897). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This is the primary Phase 3 Clarity AD trial report for lecanemab. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
This is the pivotal Phase 3 trial for donanemab in 1,736 people with early symptomatic Alzheimer's. Donanemab slowed decline on a combined cognitive/functional scale (iADRS) by about 22-35% relative to placebo over 76 weeks, depending on tau levels at baseline. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,736 Evidence: moderate
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
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
Avagacestat dosed at 25 and 50 mg daily was relatively well tolerated and had low discontinuation rates. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 209 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Although prespecified criteria for testing treatment effects were not met, these data suggest a potential treatment effect in patients with mild AD treated with high-dose crenezumab. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 184 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Based on the results of the prespecified coprimary endpoints, this study was negative. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 624 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At 6 months, galantamine significantly improved cognition and global function. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 636 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A significant drug-placebo difference on the ADAS-Cog12 favoring GV-971 was present at each measurement time point, measurable at the week 4 visit and continuing throughout the trial. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 818 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At randomization, the mean age is 72, 50% female, 77% with CDR-global score 0.5, and mean MMSE score 23.8. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 464 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recruitment of 2600 older people (≥65 years) at increased risk of cardiovascular disease will take place in the Netherlands, Finland and France. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on integrated review of laboratory, electrocardiogram, adverse events, and MRI, AAB-003 was safe and well tolerated up to 8 mg/kg for up to 91 weeks (FIH and extension trials) in patients with mild to moderate AD. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 52 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
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) regulates microglial function and is implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis. 2 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 381 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.
1,036 records (3.6% 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 →