27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Compared with placebo, treatment with mAbs significantly improved cognitive performance on CDR-SB (mean difference -0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.38, -0.11]) and ADAS-Cog (standardized mean difference -0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, -0.06]), in which a negative change indicates improvement for both scores. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18,826 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings support further investigation of ABvac40 as a potential disease-modifying therapy. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 124 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Slowing of cognitive and functional decline, and amyloid reduction in gantenerumab group compared to placebo group were greater in Japanese-GRADUATE than in the global-GRADUATE and JP40959. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,965 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Six trials (3103 Gantenerumab significantly reduces amyloid and statistically improves select functional (FAQ) and cognitive (ADAS-Cog13) measures in early AD; however, these changes remain below accepted MCID thresholds, indicating a lack of true clinical meaningfulness. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,103 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab treatment resulted in earlier and greater AP clearance compared to aducanumab. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 148 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Anti-amyloid-ß mAbs attenuate cognitive and functional decline compared with placebo in early AD; whether the magnitude of this effect is clinically important remains uncertain, especially relative to the safety profile of these medications. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15,275 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Bapineuzumab did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with Alzheimer's disease, despite treatment differences in biomarkers observed in APOE ε4 carriers. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,090 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this meta-analysis of phase III trials in AD, we found that monoclonal antibodies against Aβ induced clinical improvements of small effect sizes, biomarker improvements of large effect sizes, and increases in risk for the hallmark adverse event, ARIA, by a large effect size, when all drugs were pooled together. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 12,585 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite immunotherapies significantly increasing the risks of adverse events and ARIA, the data suggest that mAbs can effectively improve the cognitive function of patients with mild and moderate AD. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Efficacy, safety, biomarker, and PK profiles of aducanumab were consistent between the Japanese subgroup and the overall population. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 121 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, the study drug was well tolerated. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this meta-analysis, consistent results suggest that gantenerumab is not safe and efficient for early AD, showing no improvement in clinical scores for AD and being associated with the occurrence of ARIA-E and ARIA-H. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,848 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-three randomized controlled trials were identified evaluating 15,971 participants (9,103 (57%) female). 5 key findings →
Participants: 15,971 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ARIA is an adverse event associated with donanemab treatment that requires safety monitoring. 4 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 3,030 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 3285 included participants, the mean (SD) age was 70.4 (7.45) years; 1706 participants (52%) were female, 2661 (81%) had mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease, and 1777 (54%) used symptomatic medications for Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The drug did not prevent clinical progression in a trial involving patients with mild-to-moderate dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,454 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and aggregated tau are two core mechanisms that contribute to the clinical deterioration of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 396 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The safety profile of aducanumab remained unchanged in the LTE of PRIME. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Subgroup analyses included (i) MCI versus mild AD; (ii) with versus without concomitant AD medications; and (iii) Apolipoprotein E (ApoE4) carriers versus non-carriers. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,010 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Memantine monotherapy improved cognition, behavior, activities of daily living, global function, and stage of dementia and was well-tolerated by AD patients. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,433 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 74 participants who were recruited into the OLE study between June 3, 2020, and April 22, 2021, 73 were enrolled and received gantenerumab treatment. 47 (64%) stopped dosing due to early termination of the study by the sponsor, and 13 (18%) prematurely discontinued the study for other reasons; 13 people completed 3 years of treatment. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 53 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
1795 participants with early AD were enrolled in Clarity AD, of which 1521 were ApoE ε4 heterozygotes or non-carriers (85 %). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease is a progressive, irreversible, and fatal disease for which accumulation of amyloid beta is thought to play a key role in pathogenesis. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,638 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Atypical antipsychotic drugs may be associated with a small increased risk for death compared with placebo. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,353 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Following reports of meningoencephalitis (overall 18/300 [6%]), immunization was stopped after one (2 patients), two (274 patients), or three (24 patients) injections. 3 key findings →
Participants: 300 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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.
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 27,380 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →