27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,791 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Masitinib is an orally administered tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets activated cells of the neuroimmune system (mast cells and microglia). 4 key findings →
Participants: 182 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CSF AD profile was more common in patients with SCI (31 of 60 [52%]), naMCI (25 of 37 [68%]), and aMCI (56 of 71 [79%]) than in healthy controls (28 of 89 [31%]). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Estimates of AD disease duration become more accurate if age, sex, setting, APOE, and cerebrospinal fluid tau are taken into account. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,268 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A number of new recommendations and good practice points are made, namely in CSF, neuropsychology, neuroimaging and reviewing non-evidence based therapies. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The models could aid clinicians in the interpretation of CSF biomarker and hippocampal volume results in individuals with MCI, and help research and clinical settings to prepare for a future of precision medicine in Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Anxiety, apathy and depression are common in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and may herald Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 268 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No clear conclusion can be drawn on the effectiveness of psychoactive cannabinoids in the treatment of psychiatric manifestations, in particular agitation and aggression, in AD. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 422 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The study protocol is part of a project approved and funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 (grant agreement number 875221). 3 key findings →
Participants: 558 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia accounting for 60-80% of the reported cases. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In total, 24 recommendations were developed covering the research landscape and priorities within research in AD following a possible approval, potential impact on health care systems and diagnostic pathways, and communication to patients about anti-amyloid antibodies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 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.
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 →