71/100
Alzheimer's disease is a common brain disorder affecting many people worldwide. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review 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.
Ten studies assessing retinal properties in dementia were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A narrative synthesis approach will be used to analyse the results, with meta-analysis performed if there is sufficient data. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
According to CDR-SB measurements, lecanemab showed effectiveness in reducing brain amyloid and cognitive decline, with a change from baseline of 1.21. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-nine RCTs were included. Donanemab and lecanemab ranked among the most effective treatments for improving cognitive function (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale - Sum of Boxes P-scores: 0.88 and 0.77) and daily activities (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Activities of Daily Living P-scores: 0.85 and 0.90), based on network meta-analysis findings. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab (Kisunla) is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody specifically targeting a modified form of β-amyloid found predominantly within plaques (characterized as N-terminal pyroglutamate Aβ). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All drugs improved the cognitive function, with the effect value ranging from -1.23 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.30) for 20 mg memantine to -3.29 (95% CI -4.14 to -2.45) for 32 mg galantamine. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects millions of people worldwide. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with low-dose donepezil, galantamine use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.60-1.18), cardiovascular serious adverse events (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.98), and entry into a residential care facility (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.89). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
By addressing gaps in prior NMAs, this study aims to provide an in-depth evaluation of safety outcomes associated with different ChEI and memantine doses and formulations across various dementia types. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In our final study sample (N = 21,558), significant difference in survival among index AD medication groups were observed with donepezil being associated with better survival than memantine, and oral and transdermal forms of rivastigmine for both ITT and as-treated analysis. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 21,558 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified 63,347 cases with Alzheimer's disease and 126,694 controls. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 63,347 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
While most studies to date have been cross-sectional, limiting the establishment of causal relationships, the potential benefits of trace lithium for suicide prevention and dementia prevention are notable, especially in the absence of radical treatments for suicide and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Exercise training is an important strategy to counteract cognitive and brain health decline during aging. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
White matter deterioration is associated with cognitive impairment in healthy aging and Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 180 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To effectively combat dementia onset and progression, lifestyle-based interventions targeting multiple risk factors and disease mechanisms through a multidomain approach - tailored and implemented early in the disease process - have emerged as promising. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-nine primary studies met all criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hearing loss is highly prevalent in dementia; however, people with dementia are less likely to use hearing aids consistently than people with intact cognition are. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
HI and VI at baseline were reported by 30.3% and 16.6% of individuals, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,497 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
A total of 32,901 (1.12%) participants developed dementia, of which 74.4% and 11.0% were attributable to Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia, respectively, during the median follow-up of 5.5 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,930,816 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The total effect of cholesterol on risk of AD was significant and heterogeneous. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
The cognitive reserve (CR) hypothesis posits that individuals can differ in how their brain function is disrupted by pathology associated with aging and neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-one reviews were identified, sixteen of which were systematic reviews, and fifteen were meta-analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive dysfunction is common in late life depression (LLD) and is a major risk factor for dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our search yielded 182 meta-analyses meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 59 were selected to calculate DALY-weighted risk factors for a composite outcome. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis 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 →