1680 participants were randomized over the recruitment period in MAPT study. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,680 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Subjects receiving the activity specific exercise program improved in ability to perform transfers, whereas subjects in the other 2 groups declined. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Addition of ATX to ongoing cholinesterase-inhibitor therapy was generally well tolerated but did not significantly improve cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Participants: 92 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease (AD), there are significant losses of activities of daily living (ADL). 5 key findings →
Participants: 404 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Earlier NH admission of Australian compared to U.K. and U.S. subjects may be due to differences in health care, NH systems, availability, and affordability. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Donepezil and memantine have similar modest clinical and spectroscopic effect on mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 32 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
No registered drug affects the deposition of Aβ in the brain of AD patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These responder analyses may assist clinicians in evaluating the impact of memantine in a relevant clinical scenario, i.e., in patients with AD previously stabilized on a cholinesterase inhibitor. 3 key findings →
Participants: 404 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Memantine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, is approved in the United States and Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer disease (AD) and has also been investigated in patients with mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The authors believe these design elements are important features to be included in trials of depression and other neuropsychiatric disturbances in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
ABT-089, an α4β2 neuronal nicotinic receptor partial agonist, was evaluated for efficacy and safety in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease patients receiving stable doses of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 337 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Environmental enrichment may slow cognitive decay possibly acting through an improvement in vascular function. 2 key findings →
Participants: 55 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The design decisions made for ADMET are important elements to be considered in trials assessing the safety and efficacy of medications for clinically significant apathy in Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In AD patients with symptoms of psychosis, agitation, or aggressive behavior, medications can have a small but significant impact on caregiver burden. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 361 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When compared to usual care, the practice guideline for optimal symptom relief did not relieve discomfort and symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Because of the exploratory nature of the analyses and the small sample sizes for subgroup analysis there is the need for caution in interpreting these data. 2 key findings →
Participants: 111 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, the effect sizes were small. 1 key finding →
Participants: 34 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
HI is associated with increased risk of developing dementia in older adults. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Only 11 putative risk factors for delirium are supported by either strong or moderate level of evidence. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lipid-lowering agent use was associated with a lower risk of dementia, and specifically of Alzheimer disease, in those younger than 80 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 492 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Adults with Down syndrome develop the neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease and are at very high risk of developing early-onset dementia, which is now the leading cause of death in this population. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium and dementia are two frequent causes of cognitive impairment among older adults and have a distinct, complex and interconnected relationship. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frailty, a critical intermediate status of the aging process that is at increased risk for negative health-related events, includes physical, cognitive, and psychosocial domains or phenotypes. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A population-based longitudinal study in Sweden, the Kungsholmen Project A random sample of 370 nondemented persons, aged 75 years and older and not treated with B(12) and folate, was followed for 3 years to detect incident AD cases. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although statin use might be less frequent in those with prevalent dementia, we found no association between statin use and subsequent onset of dementia or AD. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,895 Evidence: low
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 →