31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Four regulatory agencies have approved lecanemab through different pathways, each requiring confirmation of amyloid pathology and careful assessment of ARIA risk, particularly in Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 homozygotes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 407 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MCH-Guard offers a flexible clinical decision-support tool for optimizing spontaneous MCH and ARIA-H surveillance. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 813 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this small Phase 1 study in early AD, ALZ‑101 was not associated with clear safety signals and elicited strong, durable Aβ‑specific antibody responses. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In participants with prodromal to mild AD in this randomized clinical trial, semorinemab did not slow clinical AD progression compared with placebo throughout the 73-week study period but did demonstrate an acceptable and well-tolerated safety profile. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 422 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ARIA was detected more often on MRI scans when every scan was reviewed by trained neuroradiologists and results adjudicated. 4 key findings →
Participants: 242 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three donepezil, two galantamine, one rivastigmine, and two memantine trials, comprising 3093 patients on the study drugs and 2090 patients on placebo, met the selection criteria. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,093 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In early AD, anti-β-amyloid monoclonal antibodies are associated with modest slowing of decline accompanied by increased ARIA risk and unfavorable structural brain changes, limiting clinical applicability. 4 key findings →
Participants: 7,837 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lower baseline C3 was consistently associated with ARIA risk across sensitivity analyses and higher baseline C1q with smaller amyloid reduction at week 26. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this prospective Korean cohort, lecanemab was generally well tolerated. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 127 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with an AChEI-based conventional care strategy, lecanemab initiation was associated with comparable treatment persistence and lower observed risks of BPSD, emergency visit as well as reduced use of psychotropic and infection-related medications in exploratory analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 589 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three RCTs (N=84) were included. Pooled analysis showed that TUS did not significantly improve global cognition compared with sham (SMD=0.31, p=0.54). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 84 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 432 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results show that in addition to APOE ε4 allele count, severity of Aβ neuropathology and comorbid cerebrovascular pathology may be relevant for clinicians prescribing anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies for early AD and developing individualized safety monitoring plans. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 985 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No significant difference was seen in cognitive and functional decline between early and delayed treatment groups. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 85 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SC gantenerumab at doses of up to 1,200 mg Q4W were well tolerated in participants with mild AD dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 225 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Long-term exposure to ACC-001 + QS-21 was well tolerated in subjects with Alzheimer's disease, suggesting that side effects do not pose a principal limitation for anti-amyloid active immunotherapy. 4 key findings →
Participants: 110 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Antipsychotic use compared with non-use in adults with dementia was associated with increased risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, heart failure, fracture, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, but not ventricular arrhythmia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 173,910 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Antibody administration was well tolerated with doses up to 400 mg weekly. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our analysis found that lecanemab showed significant positive statistical efficacy with respect to cognition, function, and behavior in patients with early AD though the actual clinical significance is yet to be established. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
According to studies, lecanemab lessens clinical deterioration and reduces brain amyloid-beta plaques (difference,.45; 95% confidence interval,.67 to.23; p < .001). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our single-center experience with long-term lecanemab treatment was similar to that observed in clinical trials. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 136 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab slowed cognitive decline versus placebo in mild-to-moderate AD by ADCOMS, CDR-SB, and ADAS-Cog. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundAnti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies offer a treatment strategy for early Alzheimer's disease, but their modest efficacy must be weighed against important safety concerns. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with Alzheimer disease treated with gantenerumab showed significant improvement in the ADAS score, FAQ score, hippocampal volume, and CSF biomarkers compared with those treated with placebo. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SC gantenerumab at doses of up to 1200 mg Q4W was well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings in participants with prodromal Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 154 Evidence: low
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events