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
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
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
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
Understanding the lifetime risk of dementia can inform public health planning and improve patient engagement in prevention. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort Participants: 15,043 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Blarcamesine, demonstrating a safety profile with no associated neuroimaging adverse events, significantly slowed clinical progression by 36.3% at 48 weeks with blarcamesine group as well as the individual 30 mg (by 34.6%) and 50 mg (by 38.5%) blarcamesine groups vs. placebo on the prespecified primary cognitive endpoint ADAS-Cog13. 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 338 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, the study drug was well tolerated. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ARIA is an adverse event associated with donanemab treatment that requires safety monitoring. 4 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 3,030 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Subgroup analyses included (i) MCI versus mild AD; (ii) with versus without concomitant AD medications; and (iii) Apolipoprotein E (ApoE4) carriers versus non-carriers. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,010 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 74 participants who were recruited into the OLE study between June 3, 2020, and April 22, 2021, 73 were enrolled and received gantenerumab treatment. 47 (64%) stopped dosing due to early termination of the study by the sponsor, and 13 (18%) prematurely discontinued the study for other reasons; 13 people completed 3 years of treatment. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 53 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Significant study-site, specimen type, and batch effects were observed. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 604 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 33,995 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Phosphorylated tau (p-tau) species (153, 181, 217, 231) increased early in preclinical AD but were reduced with gantenerumab-mediated Aβ plaque reduction. 5 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 50 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 57 articles were included in the review, including 3182 participants. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,182 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nineteen randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6918 participants were included. rTMS was significantly more effective than placebo/sham stimulation. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,918 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was no change in the primary outcome. 5 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Baseline assessments were conducted on 133 family caregivers of veterans living with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 67 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the 23 studies, 10 (43.5%) focused on mobile health apps, 8 (34.8%) on video consultations, and 5 (21.7%) on remote monitoring tools. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Enrollment was undertaken between May 18, 2021, and September 8, 2023. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The efficacy and safety of anti-amyloid mAbs in AD may differ based on patients' demographic and genetic factors. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 5,633 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 →