No significant difference in ADAS-Cog13, CDR Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB), or FAQ scores were found between treatment groups at 3 and 6 months. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
No significant difference in ADAS-Cog13, CDR Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB), or FAQ scores were found between treatment groups at 3 and 6 months. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review found that withdrawal of preventive medicines at the end of life is challenging. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 26,854 Evidence: high
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
The same daily ACB score was associated with a different degree of risk, depending on the ACB ratings of the individual drugs comprising the score. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 10,698 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current pharmacological therapy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes the cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine and the N-methyl D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the cause of more than two-thirds of all dementia cases. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients on galantamine had longer mean persistence and better adherence compared with patients on donepezil, with a hazard ratio for discontinuation of 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-0.96] and a relative risk for good adherence of 1.01 (95% CI 1.002-1.03). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In older adults, trazodone is frequently prescribed for anxiety and insomnia owing to its perceived greater tolerability in comparison with benzodiazepines. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 123 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
AChEI therapy had a significant effect on the percentage of stage 1 (p = 0.01) and stage 2 (p = 0.03) sleep. 5 key findings →
Participants: 41 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder pathologically characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) and neurofibrillary tangles of hyperphosphorylated tau in the brain. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lithium salts have a well-established role in the treatment of major affective disorders. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
People with dementia (PWD) are frequently exposed to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use, in which the risks of medication use outweigh the benefits or the medication is not aligned with treatment goals. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Elderly people are more likely than younger patients to develop cognitive impairment as a result of taking medications. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
However, recent data suggest that the risk of adverse effects may offset the benefits of atypical agents in patients with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine are the current mainstays in the drug treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent years have seen a growing recognition that dementia is a terminal illness and that patients with advanced dementia nearing the end of life do not currently receive adequate palliative care. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older people reaching end-of-life status are particularly at risk of adverse effects of drug therapy. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Concerning pain assessment, the findings of this review suggest that self-report pain rating scales, in particular the Verbal Rating Scale, the Horizontal Visual Analogue Scale and the Faces Pain Scale can be administered to patients in a more advanced stage of dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is also a significant correlation between acetylcholinesterase inhibition and observed cognitive improvement. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Indeed, it has been shown that proteasomal inhibition increases levels of oxidative damage not only to proteins but also to other biomolecules. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
If the ulcer has become chronic, the ultimate goal changes from healing the wound to controlling symptoms (such as foul odour, pain, discomfort and infection) and preventing complications, thereby contributing to the patient's overall well-being; providing support for the patient's family is also important. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →