27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Upon further refinement and validation, the VWD model could inform strategies for dosing and ARIA monitoring in individuals with an ARIA-E history. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 112 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared to the 2023 pipeline, there are fewer trials (164 vs. 187), fewer drugs (127 vs. 141), fewer new chemical entities (88 vs. 101), and a similar number of repurposed agents (39 vs. 40). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 56 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Administrative Core oversees and coordinates all ADNI activities, to ensure the success and maximize the impact of ADNI in advancing Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and clinical trials. 1 key finding →
Participants: 500 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Centiloid values significantly decreased from 52.3 ± 23.4 at baseline to - 5.6 ± 16.5 at follow-up, with a mean change of - 58.0 (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Crenezumab is a humanized anti-abeta monoclonal antibody in development for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 433 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SCarlet RoAD (NCT01224106; WN25203), a Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-year study of gantenerumab in prodromal AD, was the first global registration-enabling study using biomarker screening for entry and a single clinical endpoint for outcome. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 312 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our data support the hypothesis that the pathogenesis of CAA-ri may be mediated by a selective autoimmune reaction against cerebrovascular Aβ, directly related to autoantibody concentration and soluble Aβ. 1 key finding →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The outcomes of the present study aim to elucidate the significance of the PDE4 inhibition mechanism as a prospective therapeutic target for enhancing cognitive function in individuals with (a)MCI and mild AD dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In trials of lecanemab, aducanumab, and donanemab, incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with active treatment ranged from 22% to 44%, the vast majority of which presumably led to unblinding. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Slowing the progression of Alzheimer disease (AD) might be the greatest unmet medical need of our time. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this single-dose study, aducanumab demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and linear PK at doses ≤30 mg/kg (clinicaltrials.govNCT01397539). 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our case suggests that ischemic strokes may be a feature of ARIA and highlights the importance of having a high clinical suspicion for seizures in ARIA. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent Phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated its ability to reduce brain amyloid-β (Aβ) load and slow cognitive decline in patients with early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 811 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our study suggests that SSAE-3 and SSAE-5 are valid ARIA-E rating scales for use in routine clinical practice by experienced radiologists in specialized settings. 4 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caregivers and neurologists considered incremental clinical benefit over SOC and safety to be highly desirable qualities for a new drug that could clear amyloid plaques and delay clinical progression and indicated a willingness to accept incremental ARIA-E to achieve additional clinical benefits. 2 key findings →
Participants: 137 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CAARS has the potential to predict CAA severity; however, its clinical utility should be evaluated in follow-up studies. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Conventional parallel group randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are too large, long, expensive and insensitive to clinical change to meet the urgent need for an effective treatment. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The incremental cost of the lecanemab group compared to the aducanumab group was $30,018.97, with an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.25, resulting in an ICER of $121,678.49 per QALY gained. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Crenezumab is a humanized anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) monoclonal IgG4 antibody in development for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 500 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ARIA-H represents a spectrum of MRI findings due to haemosiderin deposition that appears to be related to impaired vascular integrity. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 262 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The emergence of monoclonal antibody (MABs) drugs since the FDA approval of lecanemab has resulted in dramatic changes in the clinical approach and management of early-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 165 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study compared the ADRs of Lecanemab and Aducanumab, revealing that ARIA was the most common AE for both drugs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During lecanemab treatment for AD, it is essential to fully understand the mechanisms, imaging characteristics, and management strategies of ARIA. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pipeline analysis shows that target biological processes are more diversified, biomarkers are more regularly used, and repurposed agents are being explored to determine their utility for the treatment of AD. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The dominant theory of Alzheimer disease (AD) has been that amyloid-β (Aβ) accumulation in the brain is the initial cause of the degeneration leading to cognitive and functional deficits. 3 key findings →
Participants: 144 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
9 of the 332 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →