Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the 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

The analysis included 8 randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6547 participants. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,547 Evidence: high

Nineteen randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6918 participants were included. rTMS was significantly more effective than placebo/sham stimulation. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,918 Evidence: high

BAN2401-G000-201 did not meet the 12-month primary endpoint. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 18 Evidence: high

Lecanemab treatment resulted in significant reduction in amyloid plaques and a slowing of clinical decline. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 856 Evidence: high

The FDA approved lecanemab for Alzheimer's disease in January 2023 which acts as a novel disease-modifying anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) human monoclonal antibody and is administered intravenously. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,729 Evidence: high

We report the case of a 79-year-old woman with Alzheimer's disease who participated in a Phase III randomized controlled trial called CLARITY-AD testing the experimental drug lecanemab. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Updated safety results from phase 3 lecanemab study in early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2024-05-10

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

Our analysis found that lecanemab showed significant positive statistical efficacy with respect to cognition, function, and behavior in patients with early AD though the actual clinical significance is yet to be established. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Use of lecanemab for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Brain and behavior 2024-06-01

According to studies, lecanemab lessens clinical deterioration and reduces brain amyloid-beta plaques (difference,.45; 95% confidence interval,.67 to.23; p < .001). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

These findings support the short-term efficacy and safety of Lecanemab in early AD and highlight plasma biomarkers as a treatment-responsive biomarker. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217 levels decreased significantly from 3 months, with the greatest decline between 3 and 6 months, followed by a plateau. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 153 Evidence: moderate

Lecanemab/Donanemab can improve memory, cognitive function, and daily living abilities in patients with early AD, significantly reduce the composite score of Alzheimer's disease, and inhibit the accumulation of amyloid peptides, thereby alleviating symptoms and improving the condition. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease, prevalent in individuals aged 60 and above, constitutes most dementia cases and significantly impairs memory and cognitive functions. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Lecanemab was generally well tolerated by most patients with early AD and treatment appeared to be more effective and safer in patients with low CSF-ptau181 levels. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 234 Evidence: moderate

Lecanemab Treatment in a Specialty Memory Clinic

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-07-01

The most significant adverse events associated with these therapies are infusion-related reactions and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) with edema/effusion (ARIA-E) and/or hemorrhage/hemosiderin deposition (ARIA-H). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 234 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease, a progressive neurodegenerative pathology, is characterized by the accumulation of Amyloid-β plaques in the brain. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

↑ Change the filters

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 27,380 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.

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 27,380 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed