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.

44/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Annotation. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia in older adults, characterized by the accumulation of pathological proteins – beta-amyloid (Aβ) and hyperphosphorylated tau protein – resulting in neurodegeneration and cognitive impairment. Given the limited efficacy of conventional treatments, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which selectively bind to and eliminate these pathological proteins, represent a promising therapeutic strategy. This paper presents a systematic review of scientific literature sourced from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, and compares clinical trial data on monoclonal antibodies including aducanumab, donanemab, lecanemab, semorinemab, remternetug, trontinemab, gantenerumab, and tilavonemab. The reviewed evidence indicates that mAbs can reduce amyloid plaques and tau aggregates, thereby slowing cognitive decline, particularly in early stages of AD. However, the clinical efficacy of individual agents remains debated due to conflicting results from Phase III trials and the risk of side effects, notably amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). The findings suggest that a combined therapeutic approach targeting both amyloid and tau may enhance treatment outcomes. Further research should aim to optimize safety, personalize therapies based on biomarkers and genetic predispositions, and evaluate the long-term effects of mAb therapy on the quality of life in AD patients.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: High

This is a pooled review. Monoclonal antibodies can reduce amyloid plaques and tau aggregates and slow cognitive decline, particularly in early stages of Alzheimer disease. However, the clinical efficacy of individual agents remains debated because of conflicting Phase III results and the risk of side effects, notably ARIA.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Gordiichuk, O., Bulekhovets, M., Bezhuk, S., Omelianchyk, N., & Popshe, D. (2025). Monoclonal antibodies for treatment Alzheimer`s disease. Reports of Vinnytsia National Medical University. https://doi.org/10.31393/reports-vnmedical-2025-29(4)-29

Vancouver

Gordiichuk O, Bulekhovets M, Bezhuk S, Omelianchyk N, Popshe D. Monoclonal antibodies for treatment Alzheimer`s disease. Reports of Vinnytsia National Medical University. 2025. doi:10.31393/reports-vnmedical-2025-29(4)-29.

BibTeX

@article{gordiichuk2025-12954b56,
  author  = {Gordiichuk, O. and Bulekhovets, M. and Bezhuk, S. and Omelianchyk, N. and Popshe, D.},
  title   = {{Monoclonal antibodies for treatment Alzheimer`s disease}},
  journal = {Reports of Vinnytsia National Medical University},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.31393/reports-vnmedical-2025-29(4)-29},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.31393/reports-vnmedical-2025-29(4)-29}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

The reviewed evidence indicates that mAbs can reduce amyloid plaques and tau aggregates, thereby slowing cognitive decline, particularly in early stages of AD.
However, the clinical efficacy of individual agents remains debated due to conflicting results from Phase III trials and the risk of side effects, notably amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).
The findings suggest that a combined therapeutic approach targeting both amyloid and tau may enhance treatment outcomes.

Why it matters

Monoclonal antibodies can reduce amyloid plaques and tau aggregates and slow cognitive decline, particularly in early stages of Alzheimer disease. However, the clinical efficacy of individual agents remains debated because of conflicting Phase III results and the risk of side effects, notably ARIA.

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

Study details

Study designsystematic review
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 44/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 93 points we could judge it on, which is 44 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Reports of Vinnytsia National Medical University)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Reports of Vinnytsia National Medical University: journal h-index 8 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	12 / 12	A systematic review of all the studies on the question
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 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	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
Times cited	0 / 7	Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	0 / 6	Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author D. Popshe holds only 1 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 0 institution(s) in 0 countries — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	1 / 2	Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	41 / 93	Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 93 points we could judge it on is 44 out of 100.
Total	44 / 100	—

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.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Treatments from nearby years

Also in Treatments

196 studies in the library are filed under Treatments with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Treatments hub.

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →