This paper has been retracted. The record we hold marks it as a retracted publication. Check the original source below for the retraction notice before relying on anything it reports.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

16/100

⚠ Retracted — do not rely on it alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Objective To identify the class of evidence for aducanumab use for the treatment of Alzheimer disease and present clinical considerations regarding use. Methods The author panel systematically reviewed available clinical trial data detailing aducanumab use in individuals with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease. Level of evidence statements were assigned in accordance with the American Academy of Neurology's 2017 therapeutic classification of evidence scheme.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Day, G. S., Scarmeas, N., Dubinsky, R., Coerver, K., Mostacero, A., West, B., et al. (2022). Aducanumab Use in Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease Evidence in Focus [RETIRED]: A Report of the AAN Guidelines Subcommittee. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000200176

Vancouver

Day GS, Scarmeas N, Dubinsky R, Coerver K, Mostacero A, West B, et al. Aducanumab Use in Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease Evidence in Focus [RETIRED]: A Report of the AAN Guidelines Subcommittee. Neurology. 2022. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000200176. PMID: 35197360.

BibTeX

@article{day2022-35197360,
  author  = {Day, G. S. and Scarmeas, N. and Dubinsky, R. and Coerver, K. and Mostacero, A. and West, B. and Wessels, SR. and Armstrong, M. J.},
  title   = {{Aducanumab Use in Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease Evidence in Focus [RETIRED]: A Report of the AAN Guidelines Subcommittee}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000200176},
  pmid    = {35197360},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000200176}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Methods The author panel systematically reviewed available clinical trial data detailing aducanumab use in individuals with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease.
Level of evidence statements were assigned in accordance with the American Academy of Neurology's 2017 therapeutic classification of evidence scheme.
Safety information, regulatory decisions, and clinical context were also reviewed.
Results Data were identified from 4 clinical trials, 1 rated Class I and 3 rated Class II.

Why it matters

This report systematically reviewed clinical trial data on aducanumab use in individuals with early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease and assigned levels of evidence. It evaluates the strength of evidence for the drug's use rather than reporting a cure or prevention.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Study designclinical trial
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 16/100

Retracted — do not rely on it. It scored 26 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 25 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 26 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	2 / 10	Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Neurology)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design	0 / 12	Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	0 / 10	Retracted — do not rely on it. PubMed indexes it as a Retracted Publication.
How recent	3 / 5	2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	4 / 7	Cited 40 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	6.7 citations a year over 6 year(s) since 2022
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 5.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 3 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 19 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	2 / 3	Columbia University: institution h-index 1,824 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35197360)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	25 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 26 out of 100.
Total	26 / 100	Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Later studies that cite this one

3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Drug development

Also tagged “placebo-controlled”

783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “placebo-controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

Where this led: Aducanumab on the treatments page — its current status, approval date, side-effect rate and list price, kept up to date.

See all studies in Drug development →