Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

⚠ Regulatory decision — not a study alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Laboratory science

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

In September 2024 the SEC announced that Cassava Sciences and three individuals tied to the company agreed to pay over $40 million combined to settle federal charges that they misled investors about a 2020 Phase 2 trial of simufilam. The SEC said the company falsely claimed the trial was properly blinded and touted a large cognitive-memory improvement, when the full unblinded dataset actually showed no measurable improvement in patients' episodic memory. None of the parties admitted or denied the allegations.

Key findings

Why it matters

The SEC alleged that Cassava Sciences falsely claimed its 2020 Phase 2 simufilam trial was properly blinded and touted a large cognitive-memory improvement, when the full unblinded dataset showed no measurable improvement in episodic memory. The company and three individuals settled for over $40 million combined without admitting or denying the allegations.

Study details

Limitations

This is a civil securities settlement, not a scientific misconduct finding or criminal conviction of research fraud per se (a separate DOJ indictment of Wang for NIH grant fraud, reported in June 2024, is the criminal-fraud track); the settlement was made without admission or denial of wrongdoing by any party.

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 1 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 0 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 14 of the 66 points it could be judged on, which is 21 of 100. Raw total 21 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 21 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Regulatory decision — not a study. It scored 21 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, studied in people, randomised / blinded and indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 14 of the 66 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (SEC Press Release / Administrative Order (Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 11311))
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 1 / 10 Regulatory decision — not a study. Named source is a regulator (FDA / EMA / CMS / SEC).
How recent 4 / 5 2024 — 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 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 0 / 2 No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 14 / 66 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 14 of the 66 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100.
Total 21 / 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

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

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

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Commission, U. S. a. E. (2024). SEC Charges Cassava Sciences and Former Top Executives with Securities Fraud Related to Alzheimer's Drug Clinical Trial. SEC Press Release / Administrative Order (Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 11311).

Vancouver

Commission USaE. SEC Charges Cassava Sciences and Former Top Executives with Securities Fraud Related to Alzheimer's Drug Clinical Trial. SEC Press Release / Administrative Order (Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 11311). 2024.

BibTeX

@article{commission2024-91a12b9f,
  author  = {Commission, U.S. Securities and Exchange},
  title   = {{SEC Charges Cassava Sciences and Former Top Executives with Securities Fraud Related to Alzheimer's Drug Clinical Trial}},
  journal = {SEC Press Release / Administrative Order (Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 11311)},
  year    = {2024}
}

Related studies in Laboratory science

Also tagged “double-blind”

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

Similar studies

More on Laboratory science

See all studies in Laboratory science →