27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
Tau accumulation in patients with Alzheimer's disease tracks closely with cognitive decline and plays a role in the later stages of disease progression. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 108 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were 813 participants in CREAD (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [8.2] years; 483 female and 330 male) and 806 in CREAD2 (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.7] years; 456 female and 350 male). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 3,664 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Enrollment was undertaken between May 18, 2021, and September 8, 2023. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 1795 participants from Core and 1612 participants with at least one dose of lecanemab (Core + OLE) were included. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Gradual up-titration of dose significantly reduced ARIA-E risk while demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics compared to standard dosing. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 843 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest medication-specific educational mailings targeting patients with AD or ADRD and their clinicians are not effective in reducing the use of high-risk medications. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 787 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 172 patients were included (86 each in the sotatercept and placebo groups). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 172 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Benefit continued to accrue with ongoing lecanemab treatment through 36 months. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Donanemab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the insoluble form of β-amyloid found in plaques, significantly slows cognitive and functional decline of AD in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild AD-related dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The data are consistent with expected rates of amyloid positivity among individuals with clinical diagnoses of AD and MCI, and indicate the potential value of florbetapir F18 PET as an adjunct to clinical diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 184 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We used Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to examine the distribution of incident ARIA-E from the start of bapineuzumab treatment and proportional hazards regression models to assess risk factors associated with ARIA. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 262 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The majority of participants were female and were taking concomitant psychotropic medications (antidepressants and antipsychotics) at baseline. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 75 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
These findings suggest that at current expected prices, neither aducanumab nor donanemab would be cost-effective for early AD in the US. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For prediction of dementia in MCI, the AD signature cortical thickness biomarker performed better than hippocampal volume. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
RoCA classifies patients similarly to gold standard paper-based tests, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.91; P<.001). 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 35 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,780 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.
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 →