A total of 20 studies were included in the systematic review, and 17 provided data for the meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 20 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.
Visually impaired individuals were more likely to develop incident dementia, with a progressively greater risk among those with worse visual acuity. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 117,187 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ARIA is an adverse event associated with donanemab treatment that requires safety monitoring. 4 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 3,030 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 3285 included participants, the mean (SD) age was 70.4 (7.45) years; 1706 participants (52%) were female, 2661 (81%) had mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease, and 1777 (54%) used symptomatic medications for Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The drug did not prevent clinical progression in a trial involving patients with mild-to-moderate dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,454 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Selection criteria All unconfounded, double-blind, randomized controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was compared with placebo for patients with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this clinical trial, older adults with MCI receiving aerobic-resistance exercises with sequential computerized cognitive training significantly improved cognition, although some results were inconsistent. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a common medical condition in the ageing population, and cognitive intervention is a non-pharmacologic strategy to improve cognitive functions. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,489 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of multidomain intervention (MI) tailored to the Korean context. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 51 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The AgeWell.de intervention reduced dementia risk. 1 key finding →
Participants: 461 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
83/100
The current study investigated several factors that might increase the risk of mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 223,875 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was no significant reduction in hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive in the intervention vs control groups (rate [SE], 3.7 [0.2]; 95% CI, 3.4-4.0 vs 3.9 [0.3]; 95% CI, 3.6-4.1; rate difference [SE], -0.2 [0.3]; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.2). 3 key findings →
Participants: 4,171 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Presence and severity of WMH are associated with substantially increased risk of dementia, functional impairment, stroke recurrence, and mortality after ischemic stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 104 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease (DIAD) causes predictable biological changes decades before the onset of clinical symptoms, enabling testing of interventions in the asymptomatic and symptomatic stages to delay or slow disease progression. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As the first NMA comparing different interventions for AD and MCI, our study suggests that PE and CCT might have a significant improvement in cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms respectively. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,747 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
83/100
Mass spectrometry-based proteomics empowers deep profiling of proteome and protein posttranslational modifications (PTMs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 12,017 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Data extraction and synthesis This analysis involved random-effects meta-analyses on group-level study results of clinical data and systematic review of the neuroimaging literature. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 591 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
83/100
Convergent evidence across the literature supports the use of resting-state connectivity as a biomarker of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,363 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and aggregated tau are two core mechanisms that contribute to the clinical deterioration of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 396 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The safety profile of aducanumab remained unchanged in the LTE of PRIME. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Subgroup analyses included (i) MCI versus mild AD; (ii) with versus without concomitant AD medications; and (iii) Apolipoprotein E (ApoE4) carriers versus non-carriers. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,010 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a large international cardiovascular outcome trial in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiorenal disease, linagliptin did not modulate cognitive decline over 2.5 years. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,545 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
GLP-1 RA therapy did not alter amyloid-β and tau biomarkers nor show improvements in cognition but showed potential metabolic and neuroprotective benefits. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,444 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Memantine monotherapy improved cognition, behavior, activities of daily living, global function, and stage of dementia and was well-tolerated by AD patients. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,433 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results highlight the need for adequate isolation and protective measures. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 135 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 →