28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
En junio, la Agencia de Alimentos y medicamentos de los Estados Unidos (FDA) otorgó aprobación mediante vía acelerada al medicamento aducanumab, desarrollado por Biogen, Inc. para tratamiento de la enfermedad de Alzheimer (EA). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aducanumab is a human immunoglobulin G1 anti‐amyloid beta (Aβ) antibody currently being evaluated for potential treatment of patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With the approval of aducanumab on the “Accelerated Approval Pathway” and the recognition of amyloid load as a surrogate marker, new successful therapeutic approaches will be driven by combination therapy as was the case in oncology after the launch of immune checkpoint inhibitors. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aducanumab, a human monoclonal antibody, was approved in June of 2021 as the first disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease by the United States Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer’s disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three new drugs are presented: dostarlimab, loncastuximab tesirine, and aducanumab. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Investigating new drugs or formulations that target Alzheimer disease (AD) is critical for advancing therapeutic interventions. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Clinical studies have shown that epileptic seizures worsen Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology and related cognitive deficits; however, the underlying mechanism is unclear. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a heterogeneous and progressive neurodegenerative disease, which in Western society mainly accounts for senile dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite the persistence of memory loss, the patients experienced a prompt and sustained response to mirtazapine. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Clinical trial registration www. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There are many who feel that the achievement of a disease-modifying (DM) designation for a drug is an important goal in Alzheimer disease (AD) therapeutics. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A person affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) gradually loses the ability to perform activities of daily living and becomes dependent on caregivers, thereby having a negative impact on the caregivers' quality of life. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Disability, characterised by the loss of ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL), is a defining feature of dementia that results in growing caregiver burden and the eventual need for alternative care or nursing home placement. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Three major lines of drugs have been developed or are under development for the treatment of Alzheimer Disease (AD): cholinergic drugs (mainly cholinesterase inhibitors), anti-beta-amyloid drugs, estrogens and anti-inflammatories. 1 key finding →
Participants: 8,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Fluid biomarkers improve the diagnostic accuracy in dementia and provide an objective measure potentially useful as a therapeutic response in clinical trials. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Available drugs for the global Alzheimer disease (AD) epidemic only treat the symptoms without modifying disease progression. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Clinical data, animal and cell studies show that some antidiabetic drugs, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), exert therapeutic effects in Alzheimer's disease (AD) via modulation of amyloid-β peptide (Aβ) metabolism. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
State Medicaid programs use prior authorization (PA) to control drug spending by requiring that specific conditions be met before allowing reimbursement. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients (N = 2,512) receiving lecanemab infusion had a mean age of 75.4 (standard deviation = 5.7) years as compared to 80.8 (8.9) years in patients with MCI/AD not receiving the infusion. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,512 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 4 of 5 patients treated with lecanemab or donanemab and who had moderate or severe ARIA-E, Aβ PET signal decreased significantly more in regions that had been involved with ARIA-E. Greater regional Aβ PET signal reduction in areas involved by ARIA-E may reflect enhanced local Aβ clearance, reduced tracer binding site availability, impaired glymphatic flow from immune complex deposition, or other mechanisms. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study underscores the importance of vigilant monitoring for ARIA and other neurologic and psychiatric AEs associated with lecanemab in real-world clinical settings. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,307,937 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The blood-brain barrier (BBB) displays a highly organized and complex structure, which is important for maintaining brain homeostasis and protecting the brain from foreign molecules or pathogens. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Boston v2.0 criteria have low accuracy in patients with AD dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 63 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor among women. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
10 of the 3,071 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 10. The same 10 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →