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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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 2,451–2,475 of 3,088 studies · tagged Treatments(page 99 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)
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.
We examined the real-world utilization and persistence of rapid acting insulin (RAI) in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes who added RAI to their drug (OAD) regimen. 2 key findings →
Lecanemab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds soluble brain amyloid-β protein, promoting its removal and slowing the underlying process of Alzheimer disease. 1 This mechanism aligns with the amyloid hypothesis, a debated model of Alzheimer disease pathogenesis.1 Only patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer disease are eligible for lecanemab treatment. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Theranostics·2025-05-25
: Integrating clinical bioinformatics with computational drug design, this study establishes a translational paradigm for nanomaterial development. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Protein Science·2025-08-27
Tau aggregation driven by microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT) mutations is central to frontotemporal dementia pathology, yet no disease-modifying therapies effectively target mutant tau. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Pharmaceuticals·2025-02-23
The amyloid hypothesis is the predominant model of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis, suggesting that amyloid beta (Aβ) peptide is the primary driver of neurotoxicity and a cascade of pathological events in the central nervous system. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent cause of dementia and can be conceptualized as a tauopathy initiated by the accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ) in the brain. 5 key findings →
Promising therapeutic interventions that target the underlying pathophysiology are changing the landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. 5 key findings →
The advent of disease-modifying therapies for neurodegenerative diseases may result in a growing demand for nuclear neuroimaging procedures presenting opportunities but also challenges to the nuclear medicine community. 1 key finding →
Deregulation of amyloid precursor protein (APP) processing with increased production of amyloid beta-peptide (Abeta) is considered to be a key pathogenic event in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
The authors of this mini-review list the key benefits (e.g., positive results of the reviewed randomized clinical trials studies for the improvement of cognitive decline in AD) and limitations (e.g., low awareness of benefits of TCM in Europe) of Chinese medicine therapy for the treatment of AD. 2 key findings →
The cognitive deficits in Down syndrome (DS) are attributed to an excessive hippocampal inhibition, which obstructs neuronal plasticity and normal learning and memory, a view which is largely based on studies of Ts65Dn mice, the best characterized mouse model of DS. 1 key finding →
The COVID-19 pandemic and the social unrest pervading U.S. cities in response to the killings of George Floyd and other Black citizens at the hands of police are historically significant. 2 key findings →
Primary analysis calculated the impact of increasing the use of mirabegron from 4.5% to 5.3%, 7.1%, and 9.4% in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, among oral pharmacological OAB treatments that included generic and branded antimuscarinics: oxybutynin, tolterodine, trospium, darifenacin, fesoterodine, and solifenacin. 5 key findings →
Atypical antipsychotics are associated with incident diabetes in older adults without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder QUESTION Question: Is atypical antipsychotic use associated with incident diabetes or hyperlipidaemia in older people without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? 1 key finding →
Extensive understanding of a drug’s real‐world target population can inform generalizability of clinical trial results and highlight unaddressed risk. 3 key findings →
Serious concerns over the rising cost of cancer drugs in the United States1-3 are increasing,4-9 following a decade during which prices rose from an average of less than $10 000/year to more than $170 000/year in 2017.10 Despite the drug industry's wish to be “part of the solution,” the problem continues to worsen.6 Between 1995 and 2013, the launch price of cancer drugs increased by 10%-12% every year.11 According to a March 2018 report, the Average Wholesale Prices of drugs increased at unprecedented rates.12 A study by Gordon and colleagues showed a 25% average annual price increase of drugs already on the market, despite competition.13 Cancer drugs spending doubled since 2013 and is expected to double again by 2022.14 This suggests that health care is different from other industries where traditional free market forces are effective in lowering prices, and that other measures are needed. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-04-14
Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use-defined as the use of high-risk medications that can increase the risk of adverse events such as physical, cognitive, and functional decline; delirium; hospitalizations; and mortality-remains a significant concern in older adults in the US.Numerous guidelines, including the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria 1 and the STOPP criteria, 2 define PIMs as medications for which the risk of adverse effects outweighs potential benefits or are inappropriate for specific populations or disease states, such dementia or kidney disease.PIM use may be particularly harmful in populations experiencing other health care disparities, as communities experiencing other consequences of health care inequity, including limited access to physicians or pharmacies, greater financial stress, and a higher comorbidity burden, may experience disproportionate effects from the adverse consequences of PIM use. 1 key finding →
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.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.