28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
State Medicaid programs use prior authorization (PA) to control drug spending by requiring that specific conditions be met before allowing reimbursement. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The evidence base, although incomplete, suggests that modest treatment effect sizes are offset by risk of considerable adverse effects. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Atypical antipsychotics are associated with incident diabetes in older adults without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder QUESTION Question: Is atypical antipsychotic use associated with incident diabetes or hyperlipidaemia in older people without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? 1 key finding →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The expert panel reached consensus on 78% of options rated on the 9-point scale. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study used administrative data from a large health care insurer in the southeast United States to describe the utilization pattern and health care outcomes of antipsychotic drug use in community-dwelling elders with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Food and Drug Administration–approved information and public advertisements belie neurodegenerative risks for second-generation antipsychotics in affective illness. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Physicians have a responsibility to recognize caregiver burden. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Comparable modest reductions in agitation occurred in patients receiving haloperidol, trazodone, BMT, and placebo. 4 key findings →
Participants: 149 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Main results We included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. 4 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the sequential parallel comparison design, 152 patients received dextromethorphan-quinidine and 127 received placebo during the study. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 93 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Exposure to several types of strong anticholinergic drugs is associated with an increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 769 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Faster alleviation of delirium and improved cognition justify good, comprehensive geriatric care for these patients although treatment produced no significant improvements in hard endpoints of prognosis. 4 key findings →
Participants: 87 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this 10-week, double-blind, fixed-dose study, elderly institutionalized patients with dementia and agitation were randomized (3:3:2) to quetiapine 200mg/day, 100mg/day, or placebo. 2 key findings →
Participants: 117 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggest medication-specific educational mailings targeting patients with AD or ADRD and their clinicians are not effective in reducing the use of high-risk medications. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 787 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirteen significant risk factors were identified: age, male gender, lung diseases, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus, severe dementia, angiotensin I-converting enzyme deletion/deletion genotype, bad oral health, malnutrition, Parkinson's disease, and the use of antipsychotic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 21 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
21% (7065) of the cohort had a record of mental illness at study entry, 25% (8300) had a record of challenging behaviour, and 49% (16,242) had a record of prescription of psychotropic drugs. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33,016 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified 1,994 records in five different databases; after exclusion of duplicates, title and abstract screening, and full-text retrieval, 122 studies were finally included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although antipsychotics were associated with greater harm than antidepressants and anticonvulsants in subgroups of persons with dementia, medications used in lieu of antipsychotics for treating neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia, such as anticonvulsants and dextromethorphan-quinidine, were also associated with harm. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 209 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Atypical antipsychotics are associated with an increased risk of stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Under circumstances emulating routine clinical practice, the positive predictive value of an MCI diagnosis is in line with previous clinical studies and the external validity of the concept is strengthened. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 446,439 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Delirium is the most common manifestation of brain dysfunction in critically ill patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 25,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results from our meta-analysis suggest that the incidence of falls of older adults living in nursing homes is high, and the risk factors for falls are various. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Collaborative care for the treatment of Alzheimer disease resulted in significant improvement in the quality of care and in behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia among primary care patients and their caregivers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →