These preliminary results suggest that donepezil may have a potentially protective effect in Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 67 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Relative to control subjects, patients had significantly smaller HCVs (standardized mean difference = -0.32 [95% confidence interval, -0.44 to -0.19]). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,702 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Analysis included patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic, compared with placebo Main results Sixteen placebo controlled trials have been completed with atypical antipsychotics although only nine had sufficient data to contribute to a meta-analysis and only five have been published in full in peer reviewed journals. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results indicate that lithium treatment may have beneficial effects on cognitive performance in subjects with MCI and AD dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 199 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recently, several genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have led to the discovery of nine new loci of genetic susceptibility in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 2,025 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
72/100
This fully-automated and available blood-based biomarker assay therefore may be useful for early detection, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of AD. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 463 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prospective cohort data from the JPSC-AD will provide valuable insights regarding the risk factors and etiology of dementia as well as for the development of predictive models and diagnostic markers for the future onset of dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 11,410 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
72/100
These findings suggest that the plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 may be useful in identifying individuals with very low levels of amyloid pathology, whereas p-tau, GFAP, and NfL may be useful in staging disease progression. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 784 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results corroborate the positive effect of pb-CT and its maintenance primarily on memory in HE and MCI participants that did not seem to be potentiated by RT. 5 key findings →
Participants: 348 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Some observational studies raised concern that statins may cause memory impairment, leading to a US Food and Drug Administration warning. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mild-to-moderate AD patients were randomized to placebo or rosiglitazone (RSG) 2, 4 or 8 mg. 5 key findings →
Participants: 511 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Genetic discoveries of Alzheimer's disease are the drivers of our understanding, and together with polygenetic risk stratification can contribute towards planning of feasible and efficient preventive and curative clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 409,435 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Genome-wide association studies have mainly relied on common HapMap sequence variations. 3 key findings →
Participants: 37,341 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Retinal thickness is decreased in AD and MCI patients compared to HC. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite most monoclonal antibodies against Aβ in Alzheimer's failed to demonstrate efficacy, the newest antibodies showed statistically significant clinical effects. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab/Donanemab can improve memory, cognitive function, and daily living abilities in patients with early AD, significantly reduce the composite score of Alzheimer's disease, and inhibit the accumulation of amyloid peptides, thereby alleviating symptoms and improving the condition. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Infusion of bapineuzumab 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg every 13 weeks for up to 3 years was generally well tolerated, with a safety and tolerability profile similar to that in previous studies. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,462 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease, prevalent in individuals aged 60 and above, constitutes most dementia cases and significantly impairs memory and cognitive functions. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies targeting amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques have gained prominence over the past decade as potential disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD), leading to major regulatory approvals and global debate. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab was generally well tolerated by most patients with early AD and treatment appeared to be more effective and safer in patients with low CSF-ptau181 levels. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 234 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
72/100
Compared to the control group of patients, patients previously exposed to exenatide had an advantage of 5.6 points (95% CI, 2.2-9.0; p = 0.002) using blinded video rating of the MDS-UPDRS part 3 motor subscale. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We aimed to summarise current evidence on different antidiabetic drugs to delay cognitive impairment, including mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia, among subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
95 patients assigned donepezil and 99 patients assigned placebo completed the study. 1 key finding →
Participants: 128 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The present data support the notion that lithium has disease-modifying properties with potential clinical implications in the prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To test whether antibodies against beta-amyloid are effective in slowing progression of Alzheimer's disease, we assessed cognitive functions in 30 patients who received a prime and a booster immunization of aggregated Abeta(42) over a 1 year period in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 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 29,780 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.
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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.
1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →