BAN2401-G000-201 did not meet the 12-month primary endpoint. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The mean CDR-SB score at baseline was approximately 3.2 in both groups. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: low
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
In participants with prodromal to mild AD in this randomized clinical trial, semorinemab did not slow clinical AD progression compared with placebo throughout the 73-week study period but did demonstrate an acceptable and well-tolerated safety profile. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 422 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The primary study randomized 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 female participants [53.3%]). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 272 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
72/100
Of the 120 participants (mean age, 71.4 [SD, 8.6] years; 55% were female), 93 (77.5%) completed the trial. 1 key finding →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 120 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The use of donepezil produced statistically significant improvements in ADAS-cog, CIBIC plus, and Mini-Mental State Examination scores, relative to placebo. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 468 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
70/100
Use of donepezil by AD patients resulted in significant delays in NHP. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,115 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The objective of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of donepezil in young adults with Down syndrome (DS) but no evidence of Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 123 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Innovations associated with the bayesian approach can improve the efficiency of drug development and the accuracy of clinical trials, even in the context of substantial data missingness. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 854 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This multicentre, open-label study evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of donepezil in the treatment of patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 133 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The long-term efficacy and safety of donepezil (up to 10 mg/day) was evaluated in a multicentre, non-randomised, open-label extension study of 133 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) who had completed a previous 14-week double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 133 Evidence: high
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
58/100
Of the total of 1795 subjects randomized in Clarity AD, 294 subjects were in the Asian region (Japan:152; Korea:129; Singapore:13). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 294 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody binding with high affinity to protofibrils of amyloid-beta (Aβ) protein. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A Cognitive Task Force (CTF) was established for the MissionAD program with the aim of reducing the screen failure (SF) rate to ∼30% and thereby reduce unnecessary subject burden, site burden, and excess trial costs. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 →