Thirty-seven studies were included. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease is a progressive illness that results in the degeneration of neurons with considerable burden. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on family informant reports and clinical observations, the median age at onset (AAO) among affected individuals in these pedigrees was 48.50 (44.0, 51.8) years. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 206 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 80 participants (mean [SD] age, lithium: 72.93 [8.77] years; placebo: 71.22 [6.47] years; 56% female), none of the 6 coprimary outcomes met the prespecified significance threshold. 2 key findings →
Participants: 170 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
7T MRI provides superior ARIA-H detection and iron dynamics monitoring, supporting its role in risk stratification and therapy assessment for lecanemab-treated patients. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 72 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Main results We included 82 studies with 10,613 participants; 72 studies with 9783 participants provided extractable data. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,613 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean age was 74.2 ± 7.9 years, and 89 (74%) were female. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 120 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This expert workgroup review summarizes what is known about ARIA, the brain-swelling (ARIA-E) and micro-bleeding (ARIA-H) side effect seen with anti-amyloid drugs. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Baseline medial temporal atrophy was associated with functional decline and microbleeds with ARIA-H. Pretreatment MRI may provide prognostic and safety information during anti-amyloid β therapy. 5 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 40 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this multicenter randomized clinical trial among older adults with family history of dementia and/or self-reported subjective cognitive decline, exercise, IRVR, or both did not result in statistically significant differences in improvements in cognitive function over 24 months. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,290 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Baseline SPPB-defined physical frailty was associated with longitudinal clinical progression and IRRs during lecanemab treatment. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 187 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
Lecanemab exhibited favorable 12-month safety, with no clear evidence of cognitive decline, and BBMs hold potential for treatment guidance. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,042 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A recent randomized trial demonstrated clear cerebrospinal-fluid DHA target engagement without detectable improvement in cognition or brain volume over 24 months. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ARIA-E incidence was 2.0% in non-carriers and 6.2% in εε4/εε4 homozygotes (εε4/εε4-versus-non-carrier OR 3.25, versus 8.49 in Clarity AD and 8.32 in Japan post-marketing surveillance). 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this real-world cohort of patients treated with lecanemab, ARIAs occurred in nearly one-third of patients. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab was the first amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibody approved by the European Commission for treating patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 18,200 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides real-world evidence on the risk profile of lecanemab, highlighting the importance of continued safety monitoring. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Before answering four binary questions, participants received brief explanatory information on expected clinical benefit, amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and the increased ARIA risk associated with APOE ε4 homozygosity. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 202 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
65/100
PRT may have a small beneficial effect on cognitive function in SVCI. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 91 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
64/100
A brief DMA combined with plasma pTau217 identifies a subset of cognitively unimpaired, amyloid-positive older adults at highest risk for cognitive and biomarker progression. 2 key findings →
Participants: 818 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this small, uncontrolled pilot study, CNT was associated with blood Aβ reductions, which should be interpreted as a statistical association rather than confirmed evidence of a treatment effect; no treatment discontinuations due to adverse effects were documented in this small cohort, including among APOE ε4/ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab may be safely used in a real-world setting with structured monitoring. 1 key finding →
Participants: 51 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) occurred in 11.2% (10/89) with lecanemab and 13.3% (11/83) with donanemab-less than in pivotal trials. 5 key findings →
Participants: 89 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab was feasible and generally well tolerated under structured MRI monitoring in routine Japanese practice. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 321 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A navigator-centered model can efficiently deliver ATT while supporting structured education, screening, and safety monitoring, potentially contributing to favorable safety outcomes. 1 key finding →
Participants: 243 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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 32,180 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.
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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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 Where this research is being discussed: events
Last updated