Immunotherapeutics targeting amyloid-β (Aβ) have had mixed results in clinical trials. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,554 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Based on integrated review of laboratory, electrocardiogram, adverse events, and MRI, AAB-003 was safe and well tolerated up to 8 mg/kg for up to 91 weeks (FIH and extension trials) in patients with mild to moderate AD. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Regular, long-term, customized HE improved the executive function of community-dwelling older people with memory disorders, but the effects were mild and were not observed in other domains of cognition. 3 key findings →
Participants: 210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
BAN2401 was well-tolerated across all doses. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Disclosure of pleiotropic information did not increase anxiety or depression and may have decreased distress among persons at increased risk for 2 conditions. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Considering several covariates together allowed the identification of responders. 2 key findings →
Participants: 186 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twelve studies were included in the final analysis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The expected outcome is to ensure the continuity of care from clinical practice to the patient's home, enabling also cost effectiveness and the empowerment of patient and caregiver in the care process, positively impacting on their quality of life. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This paper explores the rationale for a mobile phone-led intervention and details the app's effect on behavior change and subsequent clinical outcomes. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 102 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The authors could not definitively demonstrate whether the addition of 2 years of in-home occupational therapy to a collaborative care management model slowed the rate of functional decline among persons with Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Asymptomatic ARIA-E was detected in solanezumab-treated and placebo-treated AD patients. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 2,042 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Finding positive gains reduces depressive symptoms and burden and promotespsychological well-being primarily through enhancing self-efficacy in controlling upsetting thoughts. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Bapineuzumab SC once-monthly did not demonstrate significant treatment difference over placebo on cerebral amyloid signal at one year but was well-tolerated. 3 key findings →
Participants: 146 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study reported the generation of aducanumab, a human monoclonal antibody designed to selectively target aggregated Aβ. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
When compared to usual care, the practice guideline for optimal symptom relief did not relieve discomfort and symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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
Setup and daily use of mHealth technology appears to be feasible for a person with cognitive impairment with the help of a partner, but increasing daily step counts over 8 weeks was not achieved. 1 key finding →
Participants: 21 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examined the effectiveness of three different learning methods: trial and error learning (TE), errorless learning (EL) and learning by modeling with spaced retrieval (MR) on the relearning process of IADL in mild-to-moderately severe Alzheimer's Dementia (AD) patients (n=52), using a 6-weeks randomized controlled trial design. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When poor SRH was present we found no increased risk for NH placement or death among elderly people with mild AD. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
54/100
Patients who started ChEI therapy after the introduction of the coverage policy had a significantly longer persistence. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this single-dose study, aducanumab demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and linear PK at doses ≤30 mg/kg (clinicaltrials.govNCT01397539). 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Crenezumab is a humanized anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) monoclonal IgG4 antibody in development for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 500 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
N/A. ENGAGE and EMERGE are Phase 3 clinical trials designed to confirm the clinical efficacy and safety profile of aducanumab in individuals with Early AD. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Primary biomarker efficacy endpoints were not statistically significant in either dose group. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
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 →