Fifty-eight of 77 patients (75.3%) completed the trial. 5 key findings →
Participants: 77 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Following 24-month supplementation, individuals in the active group (n = 30; aged 69.03 ± 4.41 years; 56.7% female) recorded significantly fewer errors in working memory tasks than individuals receiving placebo (n = 30; aged 69.77 ± 3.74 years; 70% female) (point estimate effect sizes ranged 0.090-0.105). 5 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Post-hoc analyses showed that outcomes in the ENGAGE high-dose group were affected by an imbalance in a small number of patients with extremely rapid progression and by lower exposure to the target dose of 10 mg/kg. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 1,638 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ninety-five participant dyads (PPA mean baseline age: 67.1; 48% female) from four countries were enrolled and randomized. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Between Dec 8, 2009, and Dec 23, 2011, we randomly allocated 278 patients to treatment: 133 to placebo and 145 to idalopirdine. 132 patients in the placebo group and 140 in the experimental group were included in the final analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 278 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
28 studies (total n = 1337 participants, average age 79-90 years) were included in the systematic review, of which 21 could be meta-analyzed. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,337 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Clusters with diffuse or frontal-predominant cortical thinning, but with more favourable vascular profiles, characterized by lower blood pressure and reduced obesity, showed significantly less cortical thinning (mean thickness, AD-signature, and resilience-signature regions; all p < 0.05) following the intervention. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 120 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The intervention was feasible and acceptable with the intended number of participants completing the study. 5 key findings →
Participants: 104 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Screening commenced in July 2022. Currently, 1,965 participants have been randomized into lifestyle intervention (n = 772) and control groups (n = 1,193). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 772 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total, 30 studies were included comprising 14,997 subjects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 14,997 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The enrollment rate was acceptable despite pandemic related challenges (53/60 target recruitment sample). 5 key findings →
Participants: 53 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine the association of the apolipoprotein E ( ApoE ) gene with exceptional longevity (EL) ( i.e ., reaching 100+ years) by identifying possible unequal distribution of alleles/genotypes in the common variants ε2, ε3, and ε4 among centenarians and younger population. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,776 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this randomized trial of dementia care programs, no significant differences existed between health system-based and community-based care interventions nor between either active intervention or usual care regarding patient behavioral symptoms and caregiver strain. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 2,176 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Antihypertensive use was associated with decreased AD but not non-AD risk throughout late life. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 31,250 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this meta-analysis, the usage of hearing restorative devices by participants with hearing loss was associated with a 19% decrease in hazards of long-term cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 137,484 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 49,227 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma %p-tau217WashU had the highest performance, with significantly higher AUCs than all the immunoassays (Pdiff < 0.007). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 998 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma p-tau217 and tau positron emission tomography (PET) are strong prognostic biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but their relative performance in predicting future cognitive decline among cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals is unclear. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 1,474 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
79/100
Plasma biomarkers of AD neuropathology, neuronal injury, and astrogliosis increase with age and are associated with known dementia risk factors. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 1,525 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 171 Aβ-positive CU participants included in the main analyses, 119 (mean [SD] age, 73.0 [5.4] years; 60.5% female) were from the BioFINDER-1 study, and 52 (mean [SD] age, 64.4 [4.6] years; 65.4% female) were from the WRAP study. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 564 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APOE ɛ4, the most significant genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), may mask effects of other loci. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,203 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with placebo, the use of G. biloba, 120 mg twice daily, did not result in less cognitive decline in older adults with normal cognition or with mild cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,545 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among patients with mild to moderate AD, 2000 IU/d of alpha tocopherol compared with placebo resulted in slower functional decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 152 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 544 eligible participants (241 women and 303 men), the mean (SD) age was 74.3 (8.2) years, and the mean (SD) sMMSE score was 26.4 (1.9). 1 key finding →
Participants: 554 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →