28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 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
Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 46,836 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In patients without baseline cognitive dysfunction, short-term data are most compatible with no adverse effect of statins on cognition, and long-term data may support a beneficial role for statins in the prevention of dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 23,443 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and 163 to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. 18 withdrew (12 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and six assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy); thus, 151 in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group. 121 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy completed the 12 week questionnaire versus 131 assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 14 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence-based suggestions are proposed, offering clinicians and stakeholders current guidance for the prevention of AD. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 44 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this cohort study of US Medicare beneficiaries, dual sensory impairment was prevalent in older adults and associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,562 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Observational studies suggested an association between hearing impairment and cognitive disorders. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,461 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Benefits and risks of statins relative to neurological outcomes should be considered when prescribed for at-risk NDD populations. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 288,515 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with CKD could have an elevated dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 37,049 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In APOE4/4 homozygotes receiving 150mg BID tramiprosate, efficacy in the traditional Mild AD patients (MMSE 20-26) was higher than the overall group (MMSE 16-26) and efficacy in the Mild patients (MMSE 22-26) was highest. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 147 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No beneficial effects were observed in the dual primary outcome measures for the 2 IVIg doses tested. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 390 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four-week changes in NPI-Q total scores did not differ significantly between the treatment and placebo groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prior work has shown that the video component significantly contributes to quality and satisfaction of the visit.3 In addition to the technology itself, patients need to know what to expect for their telehealth appointments. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 5,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Such targeted approaches may not present a fair picture of overall quality and may lead to unintended incentives ("gaming the system") (7). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Letters16 October 2007Adjusted-Dose Warfarin versus Aspirin for Preventing Stroke in Patients with Atrial FibrillationRobert G. The study's important results indicate that the relative efficacy and safety of warfarin for stroke prevention can be extended to very elderly patients who are managed by nonspecialists. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 973 Evidence: high
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 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.
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 →