Exercise intensity did not differentially affect cognitive trajectory. 2 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 296 Evidence: moderate
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.
72/100
Of the 120 participants (mean age, 71.4 [SD, 8.6] years; 55% were female), 93 (77.5%) completed the trial. 1 key finding →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 120 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In participants with early symptomatic AD, zagotenemab failed to achieve significant slowing of clinical disease progression compared with placebo. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 360 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Subject to the usual caveats inherent in studies with small sample size, this pilot phase 2 study supports further investigation of this novel treatment strategy using a metal-protein-attenuating compound. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The use of donepezil produced statistically significant improvements in ADAS-cog, CIBIC plus, and Mini-Mental State Examination scores, relative to placebo. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 468 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There was no difference in the age (mean [SD], 74.17 [7.96] years), sex (12 women [67%]), or baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score (mean [SD], 19.39 [3.24]) between the crossover (n = 9) and open-label groups (n = 9). 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Donepezil is safe and well tolerated. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 35 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Between May 18, 2021, and Sept 8, 2023, 9981 participants were screened, of whom 3808 were randomly assigned; 1855 in evoke (semaglutide, n=928; placebo, n=927) and 1953 in evoke+ (semaglutide, n=976; placebo, n=977). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 928 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Tau plays a key role in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology, and accumulating evidence suggests that lowering tau may reduce this pathology. 1 key finding →
Design: phase-1-trial Participants: 46 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
This study showed that flutemetamol injection labeled with radioactive fluorine 18 was safe and had high sensitivity and specificity in an end-of-life population. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 176 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Variants of the gene triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
GRN mutations cause progranulin haploinsufficiency, which eventually leads to frontotemporal dementia (FTD-GRN). 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Olink Proteomics panel of inflammation markers ( https://www.olink.com/products/inflammation/ ) will be used to evaluate 92 proteins associated with inflammatory diseases and related biological processes. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 50 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Sixty consecutive patients with prodromal or mild AD were screened; 50 were randomized to gamma or sham tACS (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [7.8] years; 25 [50.0%] female and 25 [50.0%] male). 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
81 participants with probable Alzheimer's disease and 69 healthy controls were assessed. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 81 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
70/100
Use of donepezil by AD patients resulted in significant delays in NHP. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,115 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These findings describe solanezumab effects on efficacy/safety measures in a mild AD population. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 659 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The primary outcome was difference in the change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy scores for oxytocin versus placebo periods in the per-protocol population after 6 weeks of treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 94 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
69/100
Primary clinical efficacy outcomes were not significant. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This multicenter randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility of sham-surgery-controlled stereotactic gene delivery studies in patients with AD. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 49 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
69/100
Ladostigil was safe and well tolerated but did not delay progression to dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 107 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The full analysis set included 159 patients (66 [41.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 75.6 [5.2] years) who received placebo or cilostazol at least once. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for clinical trials of anti-Aβ immunotherapy published on or before January 12, 2022. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 9,429 Evidence: high
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 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 →