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 401–425 of 805 studies (page 17 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 safe and effective medicine, huperzine Alpha remarkably improves the cognition, behavior, ADL,and mood of AD patients. 2 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: low

The effects of antidepressants on mood, cognition and the daily activities of Alzheimer patients are ambiguous. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Among caregivers, this small randomized controlled trial found that escitalopram use resulted in improvement in depression, resilience, burden and distress, and quality of life. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The MAXCOG intervention is effective in improving goal performance and satisfaction in clients with MCI and early dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 55 Evidence: high

These post-hoc analyses support the beneficial effects of memantine on cognition observed in a previously reported clinical trial. 4 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high

LSS treatment may improve episodic memory in AD patients and may be regarded as a clinical option to counteract the cognitive decline typical of the disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Effect of an antioxidant drink on homocysteine levels in Alzheimer's patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Journal of the neurological sciences 2010-09-20

The regular ingestion of polyphenols contained in an antioxidant beverage may decrease tHcy plasmatic concentrations in Alzheimer's patients. 1 key finding →

Participants: 100 Evidence: high

This randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the effect of 12 weeks of therapeutic exercise on cognitive function and daily activities in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 57 Evidence: high

This study aimed to examine the therapeutic mechanism of the benefit-finding therapeutic (BFT) intervention that used cognitive reappraisal and alternative thinking to construct positive aspects of caregiving (PAC), in a cluster-randomized controlled trial for Alzheimer caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Ambroxol as a Treatment for Parkinson Disease Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2025-06-30

Mean (SD) β-glucocerebrosidase levels were higher at week 26 (ambroxol, 12.45 [1.97] nmol/h/mg; 91% CI, 11.54-13.36 nmol/h/mg); placebo, 8.50 [1.96] nmol/h/mg; 91% CI, 7.65-9.34 nmol/h/mg; P = .05) in the ambroxol group compared with placebo. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 75 Evidence: high

Patient treatment with sertraline was not associated with significantly greater reductions in caregiver distress than placebo treatment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: high

The results indicate that short term use of this piperine-enhanced curcuminoid preparation is unlikely to result in a clinically significant interaction involving CYP3A, CYP2C9 or the paracetamol conjugation enzymes. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

The trial was performed in 109 healthy subjects and 123 SDAT patients of whom 97 healthy subjects and 104 SDAT patients completed the study. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the cause of more than two-thirds of all dementia cases. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

This study evaluated efficacy and safety of donepezil hydrochloride (donepezil) at 5 mg/day in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease for 24 weeks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparative trial. 4 key findings →

Participants: 228 Evidence: low

A total of 325 participants enrolled and received study drug. 5 key findings →

Participants: 320 Evidence: high

Of the total of 1795 subjects randomized in Clarity AD, 294 subjects were in the Asian region (Japan:152; Korea:129; Singapore:13). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 294 Evidence: high

Dementia is marked by progressive cognitive decline linked to oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and synaptic dysfunction. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 29 Evidence: high

Our results support the positive cognitive effects of boswellic acids by reducing the systemic inflammation. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

In this real-life crossover study, THC/CBD oil did not show superiority over placebo in reducing agitation in severe dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 25 Evidence: null result

Our study compared the pain associated with 5- and 15-s subcutaneous injections of gantenerumab and evaluated the tolerability and pharmacokinetic properties of subcutaneous gantenerumab. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial 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