The experimental paradigm was feasible and acceptable. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 95 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Delirium in the elderly appears to have a poor prognosis. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 573 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our evaluation study suggests that prophylactic treatment with low dose haloperidol in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium probably has beneficial effects. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 299 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Main results Two RCTs and one controlled before-and-after study were included (735 participants). 3 key findings →
Participants: 735 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four tools demonstrated some promise, but no single tool was consistent across all psychometric properties assessed. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 35 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Studies implementing research methods (30 studies) demonstrated the role of family members as both proxy decision-makers and supporting decision-making for the person with impaired capacity. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Knowledge of CPR, MV, TF, and self-efficacy to make EOL treatment decisions increased significantly more in the ACT-Plan group at weeks 4 and 20. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 173 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our study is not subject to the biases of meta-analyses of published data, and it represents an important milestone in an ongoing collaborative effort to examine the neurobiological underpinnings of PTSD and the brain's response to trauma. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,868 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hippocampal volume loss in first episode depression is consistent with a neurodevelopmental model of depression, advocating hippocampal structure as a potential diagnostic neurobiomarker for depression. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 191 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified 24 relevant studies of 7575 patients, including 2860 with lacunar stroke; 24% had MCI or dementia post stroke. 3 key findings →
Participants: 6,478 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified that combining plasma p-tau217 and a brief cognitive composite score was strongly related to greater risk of progression to AD dementia in MCI patients, suggesting that these measures could be key components of future prognostic algorithms for early AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 110 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Daily oral DHA supplementation (2 g/day) for 24 months may improve cognitive function and change blood biomarker-related Aβ-mediated autophagy in people with MCI. 2 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Parkinson's disease (PD) may be associated with subtle functional impairment and worse quality of life. 4 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 4-week USMART modestly improved information retrieval in older people with MCI, and was well accepted with minimal technical support. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
76/100
The findings of this cohort study suggest that smartphones could offer a feasible, reliable, valid, and scalable solution for remote evaluations of FTLD and may improve early detection. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 258 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This situation presents difficulties for experimental studies, drug development, and other future research. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 94 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Task-free functional magnetic resonance imaging (TF-fMRI) has great potential for advancing the understanding and treatment of neurologic illness. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 892 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Antibody administration was well tolerated with doses up to 400 mg weekly. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our analysis found that lecanemab showed significant positive statistical efficacy with respect to cognition, function, and behavior in patients with early AD though the actual clinical significance is yet to be established. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
According to studies, lecanemab lessens clinical deterioration and reduces brain amyloid-beta plaques (difference,.45; 95% confidence interval,.67 to.23; p < .001). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There are fewer than normal glucose transporters at the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018085967) compares the efficacy (i.e. pro-cognitive effects) and acceptability of antidiabetic agents for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,855 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cholinergic dysfunction is also associated with neuropsychiatric and functional deficits, but results from randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors are conflicting. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 29 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The meta-analyses suggest the credible efficacy and safety of memantine in treating AD when used alone or in combination with ChEIs. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,567 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, we investigated whether statins alter cholesterol metabolites and reduce Abeta levels in the cerebrospinal fluid of 44 patients with Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →