alzhub.org
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.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1,251–1,275 of 3,060 studies · tagged Treatments (page 51 of 123) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

QT interval prolongation and Torsades de Pointes with donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Therapeutic advances in drug safety 2020-08-17

A total of 13 case reports were found (10 for donepezil, 2 for galantamine and 1 for rivastigmine) with rate corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation. 5 key findings →

Design: case report Participants: 13 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Nutrition and immunology in mental health: Precision medicine and integrative approaches to address unmet clinical needs in psychiatric treatments

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Brain, behavior, and immunity 2019-09-27

The 'monoamine hypothesis' is insufficient in approaching the aetiology of psychiatric disorders or in developing novel therapies. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Representativeness of Participants Eligible to Be Enrolled in Clinical Trials of Aducanumab for Alzheimer Disease Compared With Medicare Beneficiaries With Alzheimer Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. JAMA 2021-10-26

This study evaluates whether patients enrolled in trials of aducanumab, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were representative of patients with dementia enrolled in Medicare by estimating the proportions of Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who would have been excluded from these trials. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Genetic heterogeneity in Alzheimer disease and implications for treatment strategies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Current neurology and neuroscience reports 2014-11-01

Since the original publication describing the illness in 1907, the genetic understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has advanced such that it is now clear that it is a genetically heterogeneous condition, the subtypes of which may not uniformly respond to a given intervention. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Run-in periods in randomized trials: implications for the application of results in clinical practice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. JAMA 1998-01-01

Prerandomization run-in periods are being used to select or exclude patients in an increasing number of clinical trials, but the implications of run-in periods for interpreting the results of clinical trials and applying these results in clinical practice have not been systematically examined. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Systemic inflammation, blood-brain barrier vulnerability and cognitive/non-cognitive symptoms in Alzheimer disease: relevance to pathogenesis and therapy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2014-07-29

The incidence of dementia is increasing at an alarming rate, and has become a major public health concern. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The Link between Oxidative Stress, Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Neuroinflammation in the Pathophysiology of Alzheimer's Disease: Therapeutic Implications and Future Perspectives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) 2022-10-31

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, has increasing incidence, increasing mortality rates, and poses a huge burden on healthcare. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

From across this tag

10 of the 3,043 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ Change the filters

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed