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 576–600 of 805 studies (page 24 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.

Lecanemab reduces brain amyloid-β and delays cognitive worsening

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Cell reports. Medicine 2023-03-01

Lecanemab cleared amyloid-β in two-thirds and reduced the rate of cognitive and functional worsening in people with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia due to Alzheimer disease in an 18-month double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial reported by van Dyck et al. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

A comparison of a randomized clinical trial of donepezil in AD patients and this observational study indicates that if appropriate methodological and statistical precautions are undertaken, then results from randomized clinical trials can be predictive with AD patients in clinical practice. 5 key findings →

Participants: 91 Evidence: high

Recent trials of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have reported encouraging results for improving or stabilizing cognition in patients diagnosed with Alzheimer dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 523 Evidence: high

We hypothesize that the experimental group will be more effective in managing caregiver burden and coping strategies and that this will improve the perception of well-being, anxiety, and depression among caregivers. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

As a safe and effective medicine, akatinol memantine, which has a similar effect as donepezil for AD, can remarkably improve the cognition, behavior, and mood of AD patients. 1 key finding →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

There is increasing evidence that the consumption of flavonoid-rich foods can beneficially influence normal cognitive function. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In Alzheimer disease (AD), the perturbation of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) calcium (Ca²⁺) homeostasis has been linked to presenilins, the catalytic core in γ-secretase complexes cleaving the amyloid precursor protein (APP), thereby generating amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Nearly a dozen monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against beta-amyloid (Aβ) have been developed for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD), and most of these mAbs are undergoing clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex syndrome for which there is no disease-modifying treatment on the market. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an age-related dementia, characterized by amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, neuroinflammation, and neuronal loss in the brain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibodies in Early Alzheimer Disease: Lecanemab and Donanemab

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology International 2026-09-11

Pivotal trials demonstrated statistically significant but modest average slowing of decline: Clarity AD showed a 0.45-point between-group difference in CDR-SB worsening at 18 months, and TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 showed a 3.25-point iADRS difference in the low/medium-tau population at 76 weeks. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

SSRI treatment showed no significant effect on AD dementia progression (hazard ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 4.38) or cognitive trajectories, regardless of AD pathology. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

GLP-1RA use was associated with lower risk of dementia (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71–0.91) and Alzheimer’s disease (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59–0.98) compared to DPP4is. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 12,351 Evidence: moderate

There is equal efficacy and safety between Hup in capsule and tablet for treating patients with AD, and Hup can reduce the pathological changes of the oxygen free radicals in the plasma and erythrocytes of patients with AD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 60 Evidence: high

The current study aimed to investigate the effects of group reminiscence therapy on cognitive function, depression, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and activities of daily living in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 45 Evidence: high

Herbal therapy demonstrated a significant improvement in cognition and memory, which were similar to the donepezil in patients with aMCI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 216 Evidence: high

S. lavandulaefolia Vahl. (Spanish sage) extracts and constituents have demonstrated anticholinesterase, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, oestrogenic and CNS depressant (sedative) effects all of which are currently relevant to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: low

No amyloid-related imaging abnormalities occurred. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Aducanumab is an anti-amyloid-β (Aβ) antibody that achieved reduced amyloid pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials; however, it is controversial whether it also improved cognition, which has been suggested would require a sufficiently high cumulative dose of the antibody in the brain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Targeting p38 MAPK pathway for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neuropharmacology 2009-12-04

Accumulating evidence indicates that p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) could play more than one role in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology and that patients suffering from AD dementia could benefit from p38 MAPK inhibitors. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 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 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 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