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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 2,426–2,450 of 3,088 studies · tagged Treatments (page 98 of 124) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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; 13,658 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.

Economic evaluations during early (phase II) drug development: a role for clinical trial simulations?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. PharmacoEconomics 2001

Faced with increasing demands on demonstrating cost effectiveness, pharmaceutical companies are required to conduct pharmacoeconomic evaluations throughout the drug development programme. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Late-life depression with comorbid cognitive impairment and disability: nonpharmacological interventions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Clinical interventions in aging 2010-11-15

Less than half of older adults with depression achieve remission with antidepressant medications, and rates of remission are even poorer for those with comorbid conditions. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Autophagy of mitochondria: a promising therapeutic target for neurodegenerative disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Cell biochemistry and biophysics 2014-11

The autophagic process is the only known mechanism for mitochondrial turnover and it has been speculated that dysfunction of autophagy may result in mitochondrial error and cellular stress. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

An Intervention That Delays Institutionalization of Alzheimer's Disease Patients: Treatment of Spouse-Caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. The Gerontologist 1993-12-01

Spouse-caregivers of Alzheimer's disease patients were randomly assigned to either a treatment group (individual and family counseling, support group participation, and ad hoc consultation) or a control group (only routine support). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The Potential Emergence of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Alzheimer Disease: The Role of Primary Care in Managing the Patient Journey

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM 2019-11-01

Despite recent setbacks, disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for Alzheimer disease (AD) might become available within a few years. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The social value of lecanemab for patients with early Alzheimer's disease in Japan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 2026-05-10

BackgroundLecanemab is the first approved disease-modified therapy in Japan for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild AD dementia (AD-D).ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the social value of lecanemab in Japan. 1 key finding →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

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

Outcome measures in clinical trials on medicinal products for the treatment of dementia: a European regulatory perspective

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2007-04-16

Based on efficacy and safety data, several drugs have been approved for symptomatic improvement of dementia of the Alzheimer type and one for the symptomatic improvement of dementia associated with Parkinson's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

Propentofylline in the treatment of vascular dementia and Alzheimer-type dementia: overview of phase I and phase II clinical trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 1998-01-01

These studies have shown that PPF 300 mg t.i.d. is safe and well tolerated when taken on an empty stomach 1 h before meals. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

Rural practitioners' experiences in dementia diagnosis and treatment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Aging & mental health 2004-09-01

When diagnosis of dementia occurs earlier in the disease process, more time is available for treatment aimed at maintaining patient function and delaying decline, and for family education about the disease and its management. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

From across this tag

10 of the 3,071 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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