Donanemab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that significantly reduces cerebral amyloid plaques in Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease is a major cause of dementia, that affects approximately 7-8% of people aged 65 years and older (according to WHO & Alzheimer's Disease International) and thus is a major concern in public health world-wide. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The approval of lecanemab by the US Food and Drug Administration has been touted as a defining moment in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The introduction of anti-amyloid antibodies has ushered in a new era in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), coinciding with the revision of its diagnostic criteria, which now focus on the biological definition of AD, with amyloid beta at its core. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The amyloid cascade hypothesis for Alzheimer's disease is still alive, although heavily challenged. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is pathologically characterized by deposition of amyloid plaques (comprising amyloid β [Aβ] protein) and neurofibrillary tangles (comprising tau protein), and neuronal death. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a type of neurodegenerative illness in which β-amyloid (Aβ) and tau protein accumulate in neurons in the form of tangles. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ischemic stroke and vascular cognitive impairment, caused by a sudden arterial occlusion or more subtle but protracted vascular insufficiency, respectively, are leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with limited therapeutic options. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
CAA-ri gains increasing interest as a spontaneous human model of iatrogenic edematous amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA-E) in the context of amyloid-modifying therapies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Alzheimer's disease (AD), referred to as a type of dementia, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease with cognitive decline and key features comprising extracellular amyloid-β(Aβ) and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), intracranial signal abnormalities observed in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), represent one of the main adverse events associated with treating Alzheimer's disease (AD) with anti-amyloid-β (anti-Aβ) monoclonal antibodies. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) are parenchymal edema/effusion and hemorrhage that occur as side effects of immunotherapies targeting beta-amyloid for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Acute symptoms included headache and encephalopathy, and magnetic resonance imaging revealed ARIA-E and ARIA-H. Malignant hypertension and epileptiform activity were treated with nicardipine and levetiracetam. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains one of the most pressing neurodegenerative disorders worldwide, with increasing prevalence and limited disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have made significant progress in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer disease is a progressive, neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the accumulation of amyloid beta plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau proteins. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Among persons diagnosed with ADRD or related symptoms, 33.3% used an approved drug over the study period. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prevalence of neurocognitive disorders (NCD) increases every year as the population continues to age, leading to significant global health concerns. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
TTSs present some limit factors in terms of absorption due to skin physiology and the size of the molecules with established limits of percutaneous penetration (molecular mass of 500 g/mol and log P of 5). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aducanumab (BIIB037) is a human monoclonal antibody selective for aggregated forms of beta-amyloid peptide being investigated as a disease-modifying treatment for AD. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Three deaths have been reported related to treatment with lecanemab.6 Patients receiving DMT require frequent monitoring with MRI brain scans (four or more per year), as there is a high rate of clinically significant amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), both brain oedema (ARIA-E) and macro- and microhaemorrhages (ARIA-H). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab was generally well tolerated up to 10 mg/kg. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The construct of psychosis of dementia was validated, and the severity of both psychosis and aggressiveness was reduced with risperidone treatment in a robust and dose-related way, with a continuing response over the 12-week trial period. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Change detected by the MCI-CGIC was associated with baseline clinical severity and with change in clinical ratings over 6 and 12 months, supporting the validity of a CGIC approach in MCI. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent high-profile failures of Alzheimer disease treatments at the clinical trial stage have led to renewed efforts to identify and test novel interventions for Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). 5 key findings →
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
- 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →