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.

Find studies

Showing 26–50 of 521 studies in Treatments · free to read (page 2 of 21) · 31,380 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.

What “Treatments” covers

Treatments — Drug and non-drug treatment research — what was tested, in whom, and what changed — plus the approvals and coverage decisions that followed.

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.

Accelerated Brain Volume Loss Caused by Anti-β-Amyloid Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Neurology 2023-03-27

These findings reveal the potential for anti-Aβ therapies to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy and provide new insight into the adverse impact of ARIA. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 8,062 Evidence: high

Among 2218 AMARANTH patients, the mean (SD) age was 71.3 (7.1) years, and 1177 of 2218 (53.1%) were women. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 6,871 Evidence: high

In participants with prodromal to mild AD in this randomized clinical trial, semorinemab did not slow clinical AD progression compared with placebo throughout the 73-week study period but did demonstrate an acceptable and well-tolerated safety profile. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 422 Evidence: high

Dose group efficacy required a significant benefit over placebo for the primary end point and 1 or more key secondary end points. 4 key findings →

Participants: 933 Evidence: high

Rivastigmine for dementia associated with Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2004-12-01

The outcomes were better among patients treated with rivastigmine than among those who received placebo; however, the differences between these two groups were moderate and similar to those reported in trials of rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 541 Evidence: low

A phase III randomized trial of gantenerumab in prodromal Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2017-12-08

The study was stopped early for futility, but dose-dependent effects observed in exploratory analyses on select clinical and biomarker endpoints suggest that higher dosing with gantenerumab may be necessary to achieve clinical efficacy. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,089 Evidence: high

Effects of aerobic exercise on mild cognitive impairment: a controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-01-01

Six months of high-intensity aerobic exercise had sex-specific effects on cognition, glucose metabolism, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and trophic activity despite comparable gains in cardiorespiratory fitness and body fat reduction. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 432 Evidence: high

One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 4005) examined the direct effect of screening for cognitive impairment on patient outcomes, including potential harms, finding no significant differences in health-related quality of life at 12 months (effect size, 0.009 [95% CI, -0.063 to 0.080]). 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,005 Evidence: high

Older adults with higher triglyceride levels within the normal to high-normal range had a lower dementia risk and slower cognitive decline over time compared with individuals with lower triglyceride levels. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 13,976 Evidence: high

These results show that in addition to APOE ε4 allele count, severity of Aβ neuropathology and comorbid cerebrovascular pathology may be relevant for clinicians prescribing anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies for early AD and developing individualized safety monitoring plans. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 985 Evidence: high

Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) describes a broad spectrum of cognitive impairments caused by cerebrovascular disease, ranging from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,193 Evidence: high

Antipsychotic use compared with non-use in adults with dementia was associated with increased risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, heart failure, fracture, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, but not ventricular arrhythmia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 173,910 Evidence: moderate

Synthesis methods We meta-analysed results for each outcome within each comparison using the inverse variance method and the random-effects model. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 20,342 Evidence: high

The primary study randomized 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 female participants [53.3%]). 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 272 Evidence: high

Outpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. 5 key findings →

Participants: 584 Evidence: high

p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75 NTR ) signaling pathways substantially overlap with degenerative networks active in Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Participants: 242 Evidence: high

PDE5I initiation in men with ED was associated with a lower risk of AD, particularly in those most frequently issued prescriptions. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 269,725 Evidence: high

Median follow-up increased from 2.0 years in the double-blind trial to 3.9 years overall. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,485 Evidence: high

Exercise plus behavioral management in patients with Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA 2003-10-01

Exercise training for patients with Alzheimer disease combined with teaching caregivers how to manage behavioral problems may help decrease the frailty and behavioral impairment that are often prevalent in patients with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Escitalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's dementia: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Nature Medicine 2025-03-25

Citalopram is effective in treating agitation in Alzheimer's dementia (AD), but it is associated with cognitive and cardiac risks, likely due to its R-enantiomer. 5 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 173 Evidence: null result

Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23,202 Evidence: high

↑ 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.

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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events