27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
For mild to moderately severe AD, the results of the study suggested that all three treatments were beneficial when assessed using cognitive outcome measures. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The FDA gave lecanemab (Leqembi) accelerated approval based on Phase 2 data showing it reduced amyloid plaque in the brain, ahead of full Phase 3 results. 3 key findings →
Design: regulatory decision Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The FDA approved donanemab (Kisunla) as a monthly IV infusion for people with early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia) with confirmed amyloid plaques. 3 key findings →
Design: regulatory decision Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The EMA's human medicines committee (CHMP) initially refused to approve lecanemab in the EU in July 2024, judging that its modest effect on cognitive decline did not outweigh ARIA risk in the broad early-Alzheimer's population studied. 3 key findings →
Design: regulatory decision Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The EMA initially recommended against approving donanemab in March 2025, again on ARIA risk-benefit grounds, then reversed itself after re-examination: the CHMP issued a positive opinion on July 24, 2025, and the European Commission granted marketing authorization on September 24, 2025, restricted to early-Alzheimer's patients with one or no copy of the ApoE4 gene. 3 key findings →
Design: regulatory decision Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results showed that XGBoost was the top-performing modeling approach for each domain. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Intravenous neuronal tau-targeted T807-modified novel biomimetic nanosystems are a promising clinical candidate for the treatment of AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The FDA converted lecanemab (Leqembi) from accelerated to full traditional approval after the Phase 3 Clarity AD trial (1,795 patients) confirmed it slowed cognitive decline, making it the first amyloid-targeting antibody to reach full approval for Alzheimer's. The drug carries a boxed warning for ARIA, brain swelling or bleeding that is usually detected on routine MRI and is more common in people with two copies of the ApoE ε4 gene or those on blood thinners. 3 key findings →
Design: regulatory decision Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
On January 31, 2024, Biogen announced it would discontinue development and sales of Aduhelm (aducanumab) and end the mandatory post-approval ENVISION confirmatory trial, redirecting resources to lecanemab (Leqembi) and other pipeline drugs, including two tau-targeting compounds (BIIB080, BIIB113). 3 key findings →
Design: company announcement
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CMS's national policy covers FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (such as lecanemab and donanemab) for Medicare patients with a documented diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or mild Alzheimer's dementia and confirmed amyloid pathology, under a framework called 'Coverage with Evidence Development.' 3 key findings →
Design: coverage determination
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
9 of the 3,043 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 9. The same 9 appear here every time.
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 →