27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Data collection and analysis We initially screened search results using a 'crowdsourcing' method in which members of Cochrane's citizen science platform identify RCTs. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 400 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The multidomain intervention showed no efficacy in preventing cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 531 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A 2-year multi-domain lifestyle intervention among older adults was effective in preventing cerebrovascular events and also total CVD events among those who had history of CVD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 631 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found moderate-quality evidence that postoperative cognitive dysfunction at three months could be reduced in these patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,929 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among older adults with subjective cognitive concerns, mindfulness training, exercise, or both did not result in significant differences in improvement in episodic memory or executive function at 6 months. 5 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is consistent evidence supporting an association between AF and increased incidence of dementia in patients with stroke whereas there remains considerable uncertainty about any link in the broader population. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 46,637 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blarcamesine, demonstrating a safety profile with no associated neuroimaging adverse events, significantly slowed clinical progression by 36.3% at 48 weeks with blarcamesine group as well as the individual 30 mg (by 34.6%) and 50 mg (by 38.5%) blarcamesine groups vs. placebo on the prespecified primary cognitive endpoint ADAS-Cog13. 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 338 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results provide further support for behavioral interventions for persons with MCI. 4 key findings →
Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this meta-analysis of phase III trials in AD, we found that monoclonal antibodies against Aβ induced clinical improvements of small effect sizes, biomarker improvements of large effect sizes, and increases in risk for the hallmark adverse event, ARIA, by a large effect size, when all drugs were pooled together. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 12,585 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite immunotherapies significantly increasing the risks of adverse events and ARIA, the data suggest that mAbs can effectively improve the cognitive function of patients with mild and moderate AD. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Efficacy, safety, biomarker, and PK profiles of aducanumab were consistent between the Japanese subgroup and the overall population. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 121 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, the study drug was well tolerated. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this meta-analysis, consistent results suggest that gantenerumab is not safe and efficient for early AD, showing no improvement in clinical scores for AD and being associated with the occurrence of ARIA-E and ARIA-H. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,848 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As visual impairment, cataract, and diabetic retinopathy are associated with an increased likelihood of developing dementia, early diagnosis may help identify those at risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 37,705 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 18 high-quality studies comprising 24 independent datasets and 4,736 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 4,736 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Robust concordance between CSF biomarkers and amyloid PET visual status was observed (for Aβ42/Aβ40, AUC: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83-0.97; p < 0.0001), confirming CSF biomarkers as a reliable alternative to amyloid PET in these studies. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between March 1, 2016, and March 12, 2020, 383 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 383 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The interventions were positively perceived, with 72.0% finding the consultation informative and 69.2% considering the app useful. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 188 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified four plasma protein level PGSs that were significantly associated (FDR-adjusted p < 0.05) with LOAD in a meta-analysis of the discovery and replication cohorts: CX3CL1, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), TIE2, and matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17,747 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Targeting of tau pathology has long been proposed as a potential therapeutic strategy for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-three randomized controlled trials were identified evaluating 15,971 participants (9,103 (57%) female). 5 key findings →
Participants: 15,971 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
42 participants completed the study (NR = 22, placebo = 20). 5 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The APOE4 allele, but not AD-GRS, was associated with baseline lower hippocampus volume (β = -0.27, p = 0.001), greater amyloid deposition (β = 0.48, p = 0.001), 2-year decline in hippocampus (β = -0.27, p = 0.01), total gray matter volume (β = -0.25, p = 0.01), and cortical thickness (β = -0.28, p = 0.003). 5 key findings →
Participants: 126 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adults aged 65+ are at highest risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and prior to the distribution of vaccines in the U.S., were strongly advised to quarantine at home to reduce risk of infection. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 156 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 285 participants randomized (suvorexant, N = 142; placebo, N = 143), 277 (97%) completed the trial (suvorexant, N = 136; placebo, N = 141). 4 key findings →
Participants: 142 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →