27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
As the first 1-year, multinational, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of a cholinesterase inhibitor in AD, these data support donepezil as a well tolerated and effective long-term treatment for patients with AD, with benefits over placebo on global assessment, cognition, and ADL. 3 key findings →
Participants: 286 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients treated with galantamine 24 mg/day had a significantly better outcome than placebo on ADAS-cog; the treatment difference was 3 points on the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis ( p = 0.01) and 4.2 points on per protocol analysis ( p = 0.001). 4 key findings →
Participants: 285 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Such targeted approaches may not present a fair picture of overall quality and may lead to unintended incentives ("gaming the system") (7). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients' mean age was 73.6 years (range 48 to 92 years). 2 key findings →
Participants: 144 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The long-term use of NSAIDs may protect against Alzheimer's disease but not against vascular dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,989 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium (or acute confusional state) affects 35% to 65% of patients after hip-fracture repair, and has been independently associated with poor functional recovery. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with the reference standard for diagnosing delirium, 2 study nurses using the CAM-ICU had sensitivities of 100% and 93%, specificities of 98% and 100%, and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 111 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Progressive dementia was detected by PET with a sensitivity of 93% (191/206) and a specificity of 76% (59/78). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This is the first report of incidence rate differences for dementia and AD in studies of 2 populations from nonindustrialized and industrialized countries using identical methods and the same group of investigators in both sites. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,459 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In women with menopausal symptoms, HRT may have specific cognitive effects, and future studies should target these effects. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients with AD continue to show detectable disease progression over time, but treatment with donepezil for 1 year was associated with a 38% reduction in the risk of functional decline compared with placebo. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cognitive impairment short of dementia affects nearly one in four community-dwelling elders and is a major risk factor for later development of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 351 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A Systematic ReviewObstructive sleep apnoea, positive airway pressure treatment and postoperative delirium: protocol for a retrospective observational studyEvidence supporting the best clinical management of patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: a systematic guideline review and expert consensusDeprescribiendo para mejorar la salud de las personas o cuando deprescribir puede ser la mejor medicinaThe use of proton pump inhibitors among older adults with intellectual disability: A cross sectional observational studyNeed for Comprehensive Health Care Quality Measures for Older AdultsDevelopment and initial validation of prescribing quality indicators for patients with chronic kidney diseaseOlder patients' prescriptions screening in the community pharmacy: development of the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S) toolA New Computer-Based Tool to Reduce Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions in Hospitalized Geriatric PatientsThe Successful Aging After Elective Surgery Study: Cohort Description and Data Quality ProceduresRoutine deprescribing of chronic medications to combat polypharmacyAnnual Cognitive Assessment for Older Adults: Update for NursesThe impact of pharmaceutical care interventions for medication underuse in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysisAssessing appropriateness of osteoarthritis care using quality indicators: a systematic reviewCurrent Factors of Fragility and Delirium in Vascular SurgeryDrug-related problems identification in general internal medicine: The impact and role of the clinical pharmacist and pharmacologistPrescription of potentially inappropriate drugs for geriatric patients in long-term care: improvement through pharmacist's interventionChanging practice in dementia care in the community: developing and testing evidence-based interventions, from timely diagnosis to end of life (EVIDEM)High Prevalence of Poor Quality Drug Prescribing in Older Individuals: A Nationwide Report From the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA)Delirium in elderly peopleDelphi consensus statement: Quality indicators for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Comprehensive Care UnitsPotentiality of STOPP/START criteria used in primary care to effectively change inappropriate prescribing in elderly patientsToo Much to ManageHip Fracture ManagementAppropriateness of Medication Prescribing Using the STOPP/START Criteria in Veterans Receiving Home-Based Primary CareActualización de la neumonía en el ancianoEstablishi 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial 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 27,380 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.
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 →