In Alzheimer's disease (AD), tau undergoes abnormal post-translational modifications and aggregations. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Enabling characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, caregiver education and employment and PWD education) and most predisposing characteristics (e.g., caregiver age, PWD age, relationship type) were not associated with any caregiving experience measures. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The intervention group showed improvement on several measures of wellbeing including Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
More than half (55.65%) of AL residents had a diagnosis of SMI, among them 93.2% had major depression, 28.5% schizophrenia, and 22.2% bipolar disorder. 4 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 289,350 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Twenty-three studies from 12 countries were included (8 cluster RCTs, 9 individual RCTs, 6 non-randomized trials). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This community-based cluster randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of a 4-week multimedia educational intervention followed by telephone consultations at Weeks 12 and 24 on the selection of a hospice program for end-of-life care and completion of an advance directive (AD) in case of future advanced dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
1,901 participants completed the MoCA and 547 the HCAP. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,901 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
receipt of (1) any mental health treatment (medication or psychotherapy); (2) any psychotherapy in a calendar quarter. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,913,945 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among these, 85.5% were non-Hispanic (NH) white, 8% NH black, 4.34% Hispanic or Latino, 1.6% NH Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.3% NH American Indian or Alaska Native adults. 5 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 10,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Twelve of 5536 studies met the inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This is the primary Phase 3 Clarity AD trial report for lecanemab. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
This is the pivotal Phase 3 trial for donanemab in 1,736 people with early symptomatic Alzheimer's. Donanemab slowed decline on a combined cognitive/functional scale (iADRS) by about 22-35% relative to placebo over 76 weeks, depending on tau levels at baseline. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,736 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This Finnish randomized controlled trial was the first large study to show that a two-year program combining diet counseling, exercise, cognitive training, and monitoring of heart-health risk factors could help maintain or improve thinking skills in older adults at elevated dementia risk, compared with a control group who received only general health advice. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
This meta-analysis pooled data from 24 observational studies covering over half a million older adults to ask whether cataract surgery is associated with lower long-term cognitive decline compared with leaving cataracts untreated. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 558,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This large meta-analysis pooled dozens of studies to estimate how many people under age 65 are living with dementia worldwide. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,760,379 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Citalopram is effective in treating agitation in Alzheimer's dementia (AD), but it is associated with cognitive and cardiac risks, likely due to its R-enantiomer. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 173 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neurotropic herpesviruses may be implicated in the development of dementia 1-5 . 1 key finding →
Design: cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
AUC for amyloid and tau PET provide expert recommendations for clinical use of these technologies in the evolving landscape of diagnostics and therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Previous data have linked omega-3 fatty acids with risk of dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 103,651 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23,202 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia who visited an ED, there was no evidence that hospital admission was associated with mortality rates. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 872,085 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a promising fluid biomarker of disease progression for various cerebral proteopathies. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 187 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the emergence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) disease-modifying therapies, identifying patients who could benefit from these treatments becomes critical. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,422 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Data from 17 107 individuals (321 Asian, 635 Black, 829 Hispanic, and 15 322 White) with MCI or dementia and amyloid PET were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,154 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite significant progress, applications of astrocyte biomarkers in AD remain in their early days. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,204 Evidence: high
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 →