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 326–350 of 805 studies (page 14 of 33) · 27,780 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)

Showing 805 studies tagged efficacy — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

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.

A condensed protocol for communicating genetic risk for Alzheimer disease achieved similar educational results as an extended protocol in this study. 3 key findings →

Participants: 280 Evidence: high

In preclinical studies, it has demonstrated vascular protective and antioxidant effects, with emerging evidence suggesting potential neuroprotective properties. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 185 Evidence: high

Based on analysis of prospective and nonprospective studies, NSAID exposure was associated with decreased risk of Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Donepezil has been shown to be well tolerated and to improve cognition and global function in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A long-term TNP in ChEIs-treated MCI subjects induces additional cognitive and mood benefits. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 59 Evidence: high

Despite the increasing approval of antiamyloid antibodies for Alzheimer disease (AD), their clinical relevance and risk-benefit profile remain uncertain. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,236 Evidence: high

Oral benfotiamine is safe and potentially efficacious in improving cognitive outcomes among persons with MCI and mild AD. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: low

Cost-Effectiveness of Lecanemab for Individuals With Early-Stage Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2024-03-14

Neither targeted lecanemab treatment nor treatment unrestricted by APOE ε4 genotype is cost-effective vs SoC alone for patients with MCI or mild dementia due to AD. 2 key findings →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

The use of conventional anti-dementia drugs is associated with a lower mortality in nursing home residents with dementia and should be widely used in this population. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 25,358 Evidence: moderate

Effect of a CYP2D6 polymorphism on the efficacy of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-09-01

The single nucleotide polymorphism rs1080985 in the CYP2D6 gene may influence the clinical efficacy of donepezil in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate

Effects of rofecoxib or naproxen vs placebo on Alzheimer disease progression: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA 2003-06-01

The results of this study indicate that rofecoxib or low-dose naproxen does not slow cognitive decline in patients with mild-to-moderate AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 474 Evidence: high

In 1996, Kanowski et al. reported about the beneficial effects of ginkgo biloba special extract EGb 761 (240 mg/day) in outpatients with pre-senile and senile primary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) and multi-infarct dementia (MID) of mild to moderate severity. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Our results depict that 5 Hz rTMS of the bilateral cerebellum is a promising, non-invasive treatment of cognitive dysfunction in AD patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: high

Patients and their study partners who were enrolled in a clinical trial supported proxy consent both for themselves and as a matter of policy. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Bapineuzumab SC once-monthly did not demonstrate significant treatment difference over placebo on cerebral amyloid signal at one year but was well-tolerated. 3 key findings →

Participants: 146 Evidence: high

This study suggests that initiation of a low dose of antihypertensive treatment does not significantly increase the risk of OH in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 255 Evidence: high

Choline alfoscerate exhibits additional cognitive improvement in both cognitive and noncognitive domains, supporting the findings of the ASCOMALVA trial. 2 key findings →

Participants: 119 Evidence: low

Of 44 844 patients invited to the APT Webstudy, the mean (SD) age was 64.7 (10.1) years, 25 447 (56.8%) were women, 25 044 (55.8%) had Medicaid insurance, 11 347 (25.3%) were Hispanic/Latino, 9526 (21.2%) were non-Hispanic Asian, 6044 (13.5%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 12 109 (27%) were non-Hispanic White. 2 key findings →

Participants: 844 Evidence: high

From across this tag

9 of the 796 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 9. The same 9 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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