Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative old age disease that is complex, multifactorial, unalterable, and progressive in nature. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aducanumab (Aduhelm) is approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease or mild AD dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause for dementia worldwide. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After years of failed attempts to develop a disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer's disease, consistent evidence in support of clinical efficacy was finally presented for a monoclonal antibody targeting the amyloid-β protofibrils. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Currently, enhancement of cholinergic neurotransmission via cholinesterase inhibitors represents the main available approach to treat cognitive and behavioural symptoms of the early as well as late stages of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A single dose of solanezumab was generally well tolerated, although infusion reactions similar to those seen with administration of other proteins may occur with higher doses. 2 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease and accounts for most cases of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aducanumab is a monoclonal antibody selective for amyloid β (Aβ) aggregates. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There are few treatments that slow neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and while therapeutic antibodies are being investigated in clinical trials for AD treatment, their access to the central nervous system is restricted by the blood-brain barrier. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common chronic neurodegenerative disease worldwide. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The amyloid cascade hypothesis is a useful framework for therapeutic development in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Strong genetic evidence supports an imbalance between production and clearance of amyloid β-protein (Aβ) in people with Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
The repeated failures of amyloid-targeting therapies have challenged our narrow understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis and inspired wide-ranging investigations into the underlying mechanisms of disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reduced amyloid was observed in self-identified NHB participants who passed initial eligibility criteria for the A4 study. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Scientific advances over the last four decades have steadily infused the Alzheimer's disease (AD) field with great optimism that therapies targeting Aβ, amyloid, tau, and innate immune activation states in the brain would provide disease modification. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identify Clu as an astrocyte-derived synaptogenic and anti-amyloid factor; the combination of these activities may influence the progression of late-onset AD. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With recent data demonstrating that lecanemab treatment can slow cognitive and functional decline in early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD), it is widely anticipated that this drug and potentially other monoclonal antibody infusions targeting β-amyloid protein will imminently be realistic options for some patients with AD. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our study establishes a connection between Aβ antibodies engaged at CAA deposits, the activation of perivascular macrophages, and the upregulation of genes involved in vascular permeability. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These data suggest that vascular leakage events, such as microhemorrhage, may be related to the removal of vascular Aβ. 5 key findings →
Participants: 345 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Anti-amyloid therapies (AATs), such as anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies, are emerging treatments for people with early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Antibody-mediated removal of aggregated β-amyloid (Aβ) is the current, most clinically advanced potential disease-modifying treatment approach for Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid beta (Aβ) deposition within the brain vasculature is an early hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD), which triggers loss of brain vascular smooth muscle cells (BVSMCs) in cerebral arteries, via poorly understood mechanisms, altering cerebral blood flow, brain waste clearance, and promoting cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Selecting the right dose is a significant challenge in designing clinical development programs, especially for slowly progressing diseases lacking predictive biomarkers of efficacy that may require long-term treatment to assess clinical benefit. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Epilepsy is a cause of profound disability in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →