27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The FDA gave lecanemab (Leqembi) accelerated approval based on Phase 2 data showing it reduced amyloid plaque in the brain, ahead of full Phase 3 results. 3 key findings →
Design: regulatory decision Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite immunotherapies significantly increasing the risks of adverse events and ARIA, the data suggest that mAbs can effectively improve the cognitive function of patients with mild and moderate AD. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Subgroup analyses included (i) MCI versus mild AD; (ii) with versus without concomitant AD medications; and (iii) Apolipoprotein E (ApoE4) carriers versus non-carriers. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 8,010 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
FDA-approved anti-Aβ mabs have a role in slowing disease progression in patients with AD, at the cost of an increased probability of side effects. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 4,471 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The efficacy and safety of anti-amyloid mAbs in AD may differ based on patients' demographic and genetic factors. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 5,633 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The risk-benefit profile of anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear, especially concerning their safety and overall effects on AD progression and cognitive function. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 14,980 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23,202 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite most monoclonal antibodies against Aβ in Alzheimer's failed to demonstrate efficacy, the newest antibodies showed statistically significant clinical effects. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies targeting amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques have gained prominence over the past decade as potential disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD), leading to major regulatory approvals and global debate. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
According to CDR-SB measurements, lecanemab showed effectiveness in reducing brain amyloid and cognitive decline, with a change from baseline of 1.21. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-nine RCTs were included. Donanemab and lecanemab ranked among the most effective treatments for improving cognitive function (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale - Sum of Boxes P-scores: 0.88 and 0.77) and daily activities (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Activities of Daily Living P-scores: 0.85 and 0.90), based on network meta-analysis findings. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This expert workgroup review summarizes what is known about ARIA, the brain-swelling (ARIA-E) and micro-bleeding (ARIA-H) side effect seen with anti-amyloid drugs. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aβ plaques removal in the brain due to amyloid therapy is strongly correlated with a better clinical response in patients with early Alzheimer's disease and a higher ARIA-E rate for the treatment groups and clinical trials in this meta-analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapies utilizing amyloid-β (Aβ) immunization have shown potential in clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Indeed, in our review, we observed a stage-dependent neuroinflammatory process in the AD brain. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Treatment options for Alzheimer disease (AD) are limited and have focused mainly on symptomatic therapy and improving quality of life. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) have a genetically determined form of Alzheimer's disease (AD) due to the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene dose effect. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In trials of lecanemab, aducanumab, and donanemab, incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with active treatment ranged from 22% to 44%, the vast majority of which presumably led to unblinding. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab and Lecanemab showed good efficacy in ADCS-ADL and CDR-SB, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia, presenting a significant unmet medical need worldwide. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 282 participants were followed for an average of 2.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 1.3 years). 5 key findings →
Participants: 282 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This special issue of Alzheimer's & Dementia celebrates the accomplishments of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) project as it approaches its 20th anniversary in 2024, supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Second-generation anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies are emerging as a viable therapeutic option for individuals with prodromal and mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lecanemab reduced clinical decline by roughly 27% over placebo, with ARIA-E in 12.6% of treated patients;donanemab slowed decline by about 35%, with ARIA-E near 24%. 4 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Eligibility to randomize into the A3 Trial or A45 Trial is based on the screening PET imaging results. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial 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 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 →