Monoclonal antibodies have emerged as a leading therapeutic agent for the treatment of disease, including Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major cause of morbidity worldwide and its prevalence is expected to rise. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent form of dementia in the elderly population worldwide. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
46/100
A total of 13 case reports were found (10 for donepezil, 2 for galantamine and 1 for rivastigmine) with rate corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation. 5 key findings →
Design: case report Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease (AD) must be registered on clinicaltrials.gov. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lithium therapy is generally accepted as a first-line treatment for bipolar disorder, and it is also identified as one of the best augmenting options for treatment-resistant depression. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study aimed to investigate the controversial association between metformin use and diabetes-associated dementia in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and evaluate the potential protective effects of metformin, as well as its intensity of use and dose-dependency, against dementia in this population. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Repurposed drugs provide a rich source of potential therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative disorders (NDD). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Drug repositioning has shorter developmental time, lower cost and less safety risk than traditional drug development process. 4 key findings →
Participants: 992 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The amyloid hypothesis suggests that the progressive accumulation and deposition of central nervous system (CNS) amyloid with aging is the proximate cause of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SBME produced significant improvement on mental control, logical memory and paired associated learning during the 12-week drug therapy. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multidomain interventions were associated with improvements on locomotion (as measured by performance-based tests of lower-limb function) and vitality (as measured by handgrip strength); benefits on cognitive function were also found, in particular among populations at increased risk of dementia and when operationalizing strong multidomain interventions (eg, using regular exercise training instead of physical activity advices). 5 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
46/100
Although modifiable risk factors may account for around 40 % of population variability in dementia risk, the effect of risk factor interrelationships on pathology-cognition relationships is poorly understood. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared to controls, bvFTD patients showed longer time in bed (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79.31, 321.83) and total sleep time (95% CI: 24.38, 321.88), lower sleep efficiency (95% CI: -12.58, -95.54), and rest-activity rhythm alterations in the morning and early afternoon. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Epidemiological studies reveal a correlation between hearing loss and the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but the underlying causal mechanisms remain unclear. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hearing loss is a marker of risk for cognitive decline and dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-two patients were included in this study with a median age of 77 years, of which 44% were female. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hypertension or diabetes before age 62 exerted greater AD risk than APOEε4 alone. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive reserve (CR) is defined as the ability to maintain functionality despite accumulating pathology. 2 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher occupational attainment has previously been associated with increased Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology when individuals are matched for cognitive function, indicating occupation could provide cognitive reserve. 3 key findings →
Participants: 323 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
46/100
CR was not associated with hippocampal GM MD and hippocampal GM volume. 5 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The friendship subset of social networks was significantly related to cognition (independent of age, gender, depression, loneliness, and family subset of social network): B = 0.284, P = 0.01. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Kynurenine pathway (KP) activation is associated with many neuropsychiatric diseases, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 85 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with poor social health were 42 % more likely to develop CVD (p = 0.01) and twice as likely to die from CVD (p = 0.02) over a median 4.5 years follow-up. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
GDS was not associated with cognitive status, NP score, Braak Stages, or their interaction. 5 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: low
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 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.
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 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 →