27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Effective, scalable dementia prevention interventions are needed to address modifiable risk factors given global burden of dementia and challenges in developing disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 6,104 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
55-80 years of age were screened (N = 63,124). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 63,124 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with placebo, treatment with mAbs significantly improved cognitive performance on CDR-SB (mean difference -0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.38, -0.11]) and ADAS-Cog (standardized mean difference -0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, -0.06]), in which a negative change indicates improvement for both scores. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18,826 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings support further investigation of ABvac40 as a potential disease-modifying therapy. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 124 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Slowing of cognitive and functional decline, and amyloid reduction in gantenerumab group compared to placebo group were greater in Japanese-GRADUATE than in the global-GRADUATE and JP40959. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,965 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Six trials (3103 Gantenerumab significantly reduces amyloid and statistically improves select functional (FAQ) and cognitive (ADAS-Cog13) measures in early AD; however, these changes remain below accepted MCID thresholds, indicating a lack of true clinical meaningfulness. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,103 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The systematic review and NMA includes 493 168 participants from 869 trials (adding 53 trials since October 2022) reporting data for 13 drug classes (63 drugs) and 26 outcomes of interest. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 168 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Eight studies with 377,060 subjects were included in the analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 377,060 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sixteen trials, including 11,402 participants (mean age 73.2 [±5.5] years; 62.3 % female) were examined. 5 key findings →
Participants: 11,402 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified fifty studies (N=1,548,754). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,548,754 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Six prospective cohort studies with seven datasets, including 484,994 participants and a follow-up of 3.5 to 13.0 years, were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 484,994 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Initially, healthy older adults randomized to speed of processing cognitive training had a 29% reduction in their risk of dementia after 10 years of follow-up compared to the untreated control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,802 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a pathology with increasing prevalence in the context of a more long-lived society and it is the first cause of dementia in western countries. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 12,458 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An 18-month multimodal intervention for older adults at risk of dementia could improve their cognitive function. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab treatment resulted in earlier and greater AP clearance compared to aducanumab. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 148 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In Alzheimer's disease, the spread of aberrantly phosphorylated tau is an important criterion in the Braak staging of disease severity and correlates with disease symptomatology. 4 key findings →
Participants: 654 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lower baseline amyloid beta (Aβ)42/40 ratio and higher phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) were associated with an increased risk of MCI and dementia; GFAP was most strongly associated. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,467 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Second, we examined volumetric associations with amyloid (amyloid positive, tau negative versus control) and tau in the presence of amyloid (amyloid positive, tau positive versus amyloid positive, tau negative) across 52 brain areas. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 306 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our analysis encompassed 22 RCTs involving 138,282 participants (mean age 64.8 years, 36.4% female). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 138,282 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Forty-four participants were recruited between September 2019 and June 2022. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 300 randomized participants, 277 participants (mean age, 72.9 years; 69.3% female) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (142 in the MLI group and 135 in the control group). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 277 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fourteen cohorts including 726,900 participants were analyzed. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 726,900 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among cognitively unimpaired participants with a family history of dementia, changes in cognition and brain MRI outcomes from baseline to year 3 did not differ significantly between those who followed the MIND diet and those who followed the control diet with mild caloric restriction. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 604 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Study-level data from 14 studies, 2,310,330 individuals, and 102,174 dementia case patients were included. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,310,330 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Seventeen studies (5373 patients) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,373 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 →