Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 176–200 of 332 studies (page 8 of 14) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 332 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 332 studies tagged monoclonal — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

With the recent approval by the FDA of the first disease-modifying drug for Alzheimer's Disease (AD), personalized medicine will be increasingly important for appropriate management and counseling of patients with AD and those at risk. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

BackgroundLecanemab and donanemab are anti-amyloid-β monoclonal antibodies recently approved in the United States and Europe for the treatment of early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The calibrated model predicts that endogenous plaque turnover is slow, with an estimated half-life of 2.75 years. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The recent advent of anti-amyloid-β monoclonal antibodies has introduced new demands for MRI-based screening of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, particularly the hemorrhage subtype (ARIA-H). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Value-Generating Exploratory Trials in Neurodegenerative Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neurology 2021-03-05

Drug development for Alzheimer disease and other neurodegenerative dementias, including frontotemporal dementia, has experienced a long history of phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials that failed to show efficacy of investigational drugs. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Aducanumab recently underwent two large phase III clinical trials that were stopped prematurely by the sponsor Biogen. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Immunotherapy against amyloid-beta (Aβ) is a promising option for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent form of age-related dementia in the world, and its main pathological features consist of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaque deposits and neurofibrillary tangles formed by hyperphosphorylated tau protein. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Two anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (MABs)-lecanemab (Leqembi ® ) and aducanumab (Aduhelm ® )-have been approved in the USA for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A large body of clinical and nonclinical evidence supports the role of neurotoxic soluble beta amyloid (amyloid, Aβ) oligomers as upstream pathogenic drivers of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Anti-amyloid antibody therapies in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2023-03-01

After years of failed attempts to develop a disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer's disease, consistent evidence in support of clinical efficacy was finally presented for a monoclonal antibody targeting the amyloid-β protofibrils. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

A single dose of solanezumab was generally well tolerated, although infusion reactions similar to those seen with administration of other proteins may occur with higher doses. 2 key findings →

Participants: 54 Evidence: low

There are few treatments that slow neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and while therapeutic antibodies are being investigated in clinical trials for AD treatment, their access to the central nervous system is restricted by the blood-brain barrier. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The amyloid cascade hypothesis is a useful framework for therapeutic development in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Scientific advances over the last four decades have steadily infused the Alzheimer's disease (AD) field with great optimism that therapies targeting Aβ, amyloid, tau, and innate immune activation states in the brain would provide disease modification. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Antiamyloid Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Alzheimer Disease: Emerging Issues in Neurology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Neurology 2023-07-26

With recent data demonstrating that lecanemab treatment can slow cognitive and functional decline in early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD), it is widely anticipated that this drug and potentially other monoclonal antibody infusions targeting β-amyloid protein will imminently be realistic options for some patients with AD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 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 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ Change the filters

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. Show only studies that are free to read

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 27,780 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.

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 27,780 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed