Lecanemab may have a significant potential for AEs. 4 key findings →
Participants: 193 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Four signal calculation methods were used to assess potential adverse reaction signals of lecanemab and aducanumab. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,409 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundLecanemab reduces amyloid levels and modestly slows cognitive decline in a large cohort of early Alzheimer's disease (AD) but lacks real-world safety data in Chinese population. 3 key findings →
Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive functioning, mood, and health-related QOL were significantly improved following a 24-week course of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor donepezil. 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 35 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 1343 patients with MMSE scores were identified for internal validation and 285 [21.22%] took the drug recommended. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,772 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean age of 35,570 new users of cholinesterase inhibitors (30,174 users of donepezil, 1,176 users of galantamine, 4,220 users of rivastigmine) was 82; 75% were women, and 82% were white. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that severely impairs survival and quality of life. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This real-world study evaluated the long-term feasibility of lecanemab treatment in 117 patients with early Alzheimer's disease at Kanazawa University Hospital. 3 key findings →
Participants: 117 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although clinical trials have demonstrated its favorable safety profile, real-world studies are crucial for identifying rare adverse events (AEs) and evaluating post-marketing safety. 4 key findings →
Participants: 393 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study utilized FAERS data to compare adverse event reporting signals for seven anti-AD drugs. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20,537 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This phase II study provides preliminary evidence of a possible therapeutic effect of saffron extract in the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donepezil treatment slows the progression of hippocampal atrophy, suggesting a neuroprotective effect of donepezil in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 54 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Study selection The authors developed eight key questions representing a logical chain between screening and improved health outcomes, along with eligibility criteria for admissible evidence for each question. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of bapineuzumab (AAB-001), a humanized monoclonal antibody to amyloid beta, were evaluated in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease in a phase 1, randomized, third-party unblinded, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose trial. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this exploratory study, SB-742457 and donepezil were associated with improvements in global function. 2 key findings →
Participants: 61 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The objective of this study was to compare the effects of a multisensory stimulation environment (MSSE) and individualized music sessions on agitation, emotional and cognitive status, and dementia severity in a sample of institutionalized patients with severe dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These results indicate that trans-resveratrol has potential neuroprotective roles in the treatment of moderate to mild AD and that its mechanism may involve a reduction in the accumulation and toxicity of Aβ in the brain of patients, thereby reducing neuroinflammation. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 15 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A safe and effective medicine, huperzine Alpha remarkably improves the cognition, behavior, ADL,and mood of AD patients. 2 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The effects of antidepressants on mood, cognition and the daily activities of Alzheimer patients are ambiguous. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among caregivers, this small randomized controlled trial found that escitalopram use resulted in improvement in depression, resilience, burden and distress, and quality of life. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MAXCOG intervention is effective in improving goal performance and satisfaction in clients with MCI and early dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 55 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These post-hoc analyses support the beneficial effects of memantine on cognition observed in a previously reported clinical trial. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Benefit-finding is an efficacious intervention for depressive symptoms in Alzheimer caregivers, with strong effects in the medium-term post-intervention and possible moderate effects in the longer-term post-intervention. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
LSS treatment may improve episodic memory in AD patients and may be regarded as a clinical option to counteract the cognitive decline typical of the disease. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Phenotypic personality dimensions, primarily neuroticism and extraversion, moderate the relationship between APOE [Latin Small Letter Open E]-4 genotype and cognitive outcomes among older adults. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
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. 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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