In TRAILBLAZER-ALZ, 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 [53.3%] female) were randomized. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,955 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In patients with early Alzheimer's disease, donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 257 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Gradual up-titration of dose significantly reduced ARIA-E risk while demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics compared to standard dosing. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 843 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Reduction of amyloid via amyloid-targeting therapies may result in clinical benefit. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,582 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The primary study randomized 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 female participants [53.3%]). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
74/100
This is the pivotal Phase 3 trial for donanemab in 1,736 people with early symptomatic Alzheimer's. Donanemab slowed decline on a combined cognitive/functional scale (iADRS) by about 22-35% relative to placebo over 76 weeks, depending on tau levels at baseline. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,736 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
Among 1736 randomized participants (mean age, 73.0 years; 996 [57.4%] women; 1182 [68.1%] with low/medium tau pathology and 552 [31.8%] with high tau pathology), 1320 (76%) completed the trial. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 860 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
SEE THAL AND VANDENBERGHE DOI101093/BRAIN/AWW057 FOR A SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY ON THIS ARTICLE: Post-mortem Braak staging of neurofibrillary tau tangle topographical distribution is one of the core neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
An increased HV:CTV ratio was predictive of faster clinical decline in participants with AD who were clinically indistinguishable at baseline except for a greater dysexecutive presentation. 1 key finding →
Participants: 229 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We report kinetic modeling results of dynamic acquisition data from 0 to 100 min after injection with the tau PET tracer 18 F-AV-1451 in 19 subjects. 2 key findings →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Donanemab is an amyloid-targeting therapy that resulted in robust amyloid plaque reduction and slowed Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression compared with placebo in the phase II TRAILBLAZER-ALZ study (NCT03367403). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →