31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Lecanemab-related ARIA demonstrates a clear ApoE4 gene-dose effect, supporting routine ApoE4 genotyping before treatment. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,576 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
Compared to placebo, lecanemab demonstrated statistically significant slowing of cognitive decline on CDR-SB and secondary endpoints, including amyloid burden reduction. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 698 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The analysis included 8 randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6547 participants. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,547 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four regulatory agencies have approved lecanemab through different pathways, each requiring confirmation of amyloid pathology and careful assessment of ARIA risk, particularly in Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 homozygotes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 407 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Lower baseline C3 was consistently associated with ARIA risk across sensitivity analyses and higher baseline C1q with smaller amyloid reduction at week 26. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this prospective Korean cohort, lecanemab was generally well tolerated. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 127 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with an AChEI-based conventional care strategy, lecanemab initiation was associated with comparable treatment persistence and lower observed risks of BPSD, emergency visit as well as reduced use of psychotropic and infection-related medications in exploratory analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 589 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our single-center experience with long-term lecanemab treatment was similar to that observed in clinical trials. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 136 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab slowed cognitive decline versus placebo in mild-to-moderate AD by ADCOMS, CDR-SB, and ADAS-Cog. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundAnti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies offer a treatment strategy for early Alzheimer's disease, but their modest efficacy must be weighed against important safety concerns. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 1795 participants were enrolled (lecanemab:898; placebo:897). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This is the primary Phase 3 Clarity AD trial report for lecanemab. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-seven studies were included. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 Where this research is being discussed: events