ReviewCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2025
The Clinical Trials Landscape for Alzheimer's Disease.
Review in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
- The Clinical Trials Landscape for Alzheimer's Disease.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNot only drug and non-drug development but also non-therapeutic research in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials is unclear.
methodsThe participants were AD clinical trials obtained from the clinicaltrials.gov registry. The research objectives and interventions of those trials were analyzed. Bibliometric network analysis of those published articles in PubMed was also conducted.
resultsA total of 1681 clinical trials and 565 corresponding published articles in the past 20 years were included in the analysis. "Safety", "dose", "adverse events", and "biomarker" were the most frequently used words that appeared in the title or abstract of published articles. The top three classes of 362 drugs were anti-Amyloid, enhancing acetylcholine, neurotransmitter, or targeting its receptor. The physical therapy, diet, and cognitive training ranked as the first three classes of non-drug therapy. Imaging, risk factors, and molecular biomarkers were the three most abundant categories in non-therapeutic research, and three fields of prevention, risk factors, and the dental or intestinal microbiome showed an escalated trend (All P DISSUSION: The results described a comprehensive landscape for the clinical studies of AD. Although most drugs treated AD abortively, the success of lecanemab and decanemab provides confidence for us to further study the pathogenesis of AD and explore new therapeutic targets to develop anti-AD drugs. Rising non-drug and non-therapeutic research will provide more possible methods for the treatment and prevention of AD in thefuture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.