BAN2401-G000-201 did not meet the 12-month primary endpoint. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The mean CDR-SB score at baseline was approximately 3.2 in both groups. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 1795 participants from Core and 1612 participants with at least one dose of lecanemab (Core + OLE) were included. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The most significant adverse events associated with these therapies are infusion-related reactions and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) with edema/effusion (ARIA-E) and/or hemorrhage/hemosiderin deposition (ARIA-H). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 234 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Innovations associated with the bayesian approach can improve the efficiency of drug development and the accuracy of clinical trials, even in the context of substantial data missingness. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 854 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Benefit continued to accrue with ongoing lecanemab treatment through 36 months. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Differential eligibility may contribute to underrepresentation of some minoritized racial and ethnic groups in early AD trials. 2 key findings →
Participants: 156 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
Of the total of 1795 subjects randomized in Clarity AD, 294 subjects were in the Asian region (Japan:152; Korea:129; Singapore:13). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 294 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ARIA-positive patients had significantly higher Fazekas scores compared with ARIA-negative patients (1.37 versus 1.0; P = .0262), indicating a greater DWMH burden. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab was approved for early Alzheimer's disease in Japan, with ≈ 6000 patients treated in the first year post approval. 2 key findings →
Participants: 6,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The advent of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), from symptomatic relief to disease modification. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Controversies over anti-amyloid immunotherapies underscore the need to elucidate their mechanisms of action. 2 key findings →
Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) are the principal safety concern limiting anti-amyloid therapies for Alzheimer's disease, yet their biology remains unclear. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control Participants: 3 Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest significant binding of lecanemab to cerebral amyloid angiopathy in DS. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study included 197 patients in whom lecanemab infusions had been started (lecanemab group), as well as 173 patients in whom lecanemab had been ordered but not yet started, who were combined with 1139 research participants with cognitive impairment from the Knight ADRC cohort to form the untreated control group with cognitive impairment (n=1312). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,312 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab (Leqembi®) is approved in the United States for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) to be initiated in early AD (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] due to AD or mild AD dementia) with confirmed brain amyloid pathology.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cross-sectional study examines lecanemeb update among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment and evaluates whether there are disparities among potentially eligible patients. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab was generally well-tolerated during the 6-month lecanemab-only treatment period. 5 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The future price of lecanemab in European countries is unknown. 2 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab reduced amyloid PET in symptomatic participants with DIAD at Week 24. 3 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant median Centiloid reduction of 30.9 was observed, with a 24.1% amyloid PET negativity rate after six months. 3 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab cleared amyloid-β in two-thirds and reduced the rate of cognitive and functional worsening in people with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia due to Alzheimer disease in an 18-month double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial reported by van Dyck et al. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
47/100
Nearly a dozen monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against beta-amyloid (Aβ) have been developed for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD), and most of these mAbs are undergoing clinical trials. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Pivotal trials demonstrated statistically significant but modest average slowing of decline: Clarity AD showed a 0.45-point between-group difference in CDR-SB worsening at 18 months, and TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 showed a 3.25-point iADRS difference in the low/medium-tau population at 76 weeks. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab and donanemab are monoclonal antibody therapies that remove amyloid-beta from the brain. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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.
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 →