27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
BackgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) is a growing neurodegenerative disorder causing cognitive decline, memory loss, and functional impairment. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ARIA were infrequent. In donanemab-treated patients, mildly symptomatic ARIA-E occurred in 10% (2/20) and asymptomatic ARIA-H in 15% (3/20). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ARIA-E incidence was 2.0% in non-carriers and 6.2% in εε4/εε4 homozygotes (εε4/εε4-versus-non-carrier OR 3.25, versus 8.49 in Clarity AD and 8.32 in Japan post-marketing surveillance). 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Differential eligibility may contribute to underrepresentation of some minoritized racial and ethnic groups in early AD trials. 2 key findings →
Participants: 156 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) occurred in 11.2% (10/89) with lecanemab and 13.3% (11/83) with donanemab-less than in pivotal trials. 5 key findings →
Participants: 89 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neither targeted lecanemab treatment nor treatment unrestricted by APOE ε4 genotype is cost-effective vs SoC alone for patients with MCI or mild dementia due to AD. 2 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among 1005 amyloid-positive participants, 24.6% were eligible for lecanemab and 28.0% for donanemab (9.1% and 10.3% of the initial sample). 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,726 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab may have a significant potential for AEs. 4 key findings →
Participants: 193 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four signal calculation methods were used to assess potential adverse reaction signals of lecanemab and aducanumab. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,409 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundLecanemab reduces amyloid levels and modestly slows cognitive decline in a large cohort of early Alzheimer's disease (AD) but lacks real-world safety data in Chinese population. 3 key findings →
Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
The recently published results of the 18-month randomized controlled trial of lecanemab, reporting the efficacy of the drug in slowing the progression of early Alzheimer disease, quickly led to approval by the FDA and widespread acceptance of lecanemab treatment. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among 6437 participants screened, with non-Hispanic (NH) White as the reference group, odds ratios of plasma ineligibility were 2.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.40-6.96) for Hispanic Black, 1.60 (95% CI: 1.33-1.92) for Hispanic White, 2.10 (95% CI: 1.37-3.38) for NH Asian, and 1.59 (95% CI: 1.27-2.0) for NH Black participants. 3 key findings →
Participants: 6,437 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ARIA-positive patients had significantly higher Fazekas scores compared with ARIA-negative patients (1.37 versus 1.0; P = .0262), indicating a greater DWMH burden. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab was approved for early Alzheimer's disease in Japan, with ≈ 6000 patients treated in the first year post approval. 2 key findings →
Participants: 6,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The advent of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), from symptomatic relief to disease modification. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab significantly attenuated cognitive decline versus ADNI. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab (Leqembi®) was recently approved by health authorities in the United States, Japan, and China to treat early Alzheimer's disease (AD), including patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease upon confirmation of amyloid beta pathology. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,641 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Controversies over anti-amyloid immunotherapies underscore the need to elucidate their mechanisms of action. 2 key findings →
Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) are the principal safety concern limiting anti-amyloid therapies for Alzheimer's disease, yet their biology remains unclear. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control Participants: 3 Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest significant binding of lecanemab to cerebral amyloid angiopathy in DS. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our case suggests that ischemic strokes may be a feature of ARIA and highlights the importance of having a high clinical suspicion for seizures in ARIA. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent Phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated its ability to reduce brain amyloid-β (Aβ) load and slow cognitive decline in patients with early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 811 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean age was 72 years (49-90 years), and 44 (62%) patients were female. 1 key finding →
Participants: 71 Evidence: low
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 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.
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 →