89/100
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
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
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
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
Vision impairment (VI) and eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma and cataract have been reported to be associated with cognitive impairment and dementia, however, to date, very little attempt has been made to collate and synthesizes such literature. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 232 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 34 239 patients enrolled, 24 065 had lengths of stay of at least 72 hours and were included in the primary analytic sample (10 313 in the default order group and 13 752 in the usual care group; 13 338 [55.4%] women; mean age, 77.9 years). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 239 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
84/100
This study found that a commercially available plasma p-tau217 immunoassay accurately identified biological AD, comparable with results using CSF biomarkers, with reproducible cut-offs across cohorts. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 786 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
84/100
The multidomain intervention showed no efficacy in preventing cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 531 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite immunotherapies significantly increasing the risks of adverse events and ARIA, the data suggest that mAbs can effectively improve the cognitive function of patients with mild and moderate AD. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Efficacy, safety, biomarker, and PK profiles of aducanumab were consistent between the Japanese subgroup and the overall population. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 121 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this meta-analysis, consistent results suggest that gantenerumab is not safe and efficient for early AD, showing no improvement in clinical scores for AD and being associated with the occurrence of ARIA-E and ARIA-H. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,848 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The interventions were positively perceived, with 72.0% finding the consultation informative and 69.2% considering the app useful. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 188 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified four plasma protein level PGSs that were significantly associated (FDR-adjusted p < 0.05) with LOAD in a meta-analysis of the discovery and replication cohorts: CX3CL1, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), TIE2, and matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17,747 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The APOE4 allele, but not AD-GRS, was associated with baseline lower hippocampus volume (β = -0.27, p = 0.001), greater amyloid deposition (β = 0.48, p = 0.001), 2-year decline in hippocampus (β = -0.27, p = 0.01), total gray matter volume (β = -0.25, p = 0.01), and cortical thickness (β = -0.28, p = 0.003). 5 key findings →
Participants: 126 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a common medical condition in the ageing population, and cognitive intervention is a non-pharmacologic strategy to improve cognitive functions. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,489 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The AgeWell.de intervention reduced dementia risk. 1 key finding →
Participants: 461 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The safety profile of aducanumab remained unchanged in the LTE of PRIME. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
GLP-1 RA therapy did not alter amyloid-β and tau biomarkers nor show improvements in cognition but showed potential metabolic and neuroprotective benefits. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,444 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Primary outcome was feasibility of the multimodal intervention, evaluated by recruitment rate during a 6-month recruitment phase, overall adherence in each intervention arm, and 6-month retention rate. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 93 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified and validated five novel gene associations in cortical brain tissue ( PRKAG1 , C3orf62 , LYSMD4 , ZNF439 , SLC11A2 ) and six genes proximal to known AD-related GWAS loci (Blood: MYBPC3 ; Brain: MTCH2 , CYB561 , MADD , PSMA5 , ANXA11 ). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,683 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The analysis included 8 randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6547 participants. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,547 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventeen RCTs, comprising 7214 participants, investigated the efficacy of the following drugs: Donepezil, Rivastigmine, Galantamine, Memantine, Ginkgo biloba extract (EGb), Atorvastatin-calcium and Vitamin B in the treatment of AD. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,214 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Electrophysiological and behavioral tests demonstrated strong correlation and accurate hearing impairment detection compared to PTA. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,071 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 →