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 701–725 of 805 studies (page 29 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.

The social value of lecanemab for patients with early Alzheimer's disease in Japan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 2026-05-10

BackgroundLecanemab is the first approved disease-modified therapy in Japan for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild AD dementia (AD-D).ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the social value of lecanemab in Japan. 1 key finding →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) exhibits distinct biochemical and histopathological attributes, encompassing cellular, neuronal, and oxidative impairment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

These studies have shown that PPF 300 mg t.i.d. is safe and well tolerated when taken on an empty stomach 1 h before meals. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Improvements in the aspects evaluated are expected in the IG compared to CG. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Naodesheng (NDS) formula, which consists of Rhizoma Chuanxiong, Lobed Kudzuvine, Carthamus tinctorius, Radix Notoginseng, and Crataegus pinnatifida, is widely applied for the treatment of cardio/cerebrovascular ischemic diseases, ischemic stroke, and sequelae of cerebral hemorrhage, etc. At present, the studies on NDS formula for Alzheimer's disease (AD) only focus on single component of this prescription, and there is no report about the synergistic mechanism of the constituents in NDS formula for the potential treatment of dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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 →

Participants: 3,734 Evidence: low

Lecanemab use for early Alzheimer disease in Canada

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2026-06-28

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 →

Evidence: low

Lecanemab, an amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibody, was recently approved for early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease in South Korea. 5 key findings →

Participants: 112 Evidence: low

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 →

Participants: 75 Evidence: low

Uncertainty surrounds cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEIs) effectiveness in mild to moderate Alzheimer Disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,678 Evidence: low

Within the limitations of measuring in vitro equilibrium binding activity of in‐house recombinant antibodies to aqueously extracted Aβ from human postmortem brain tissue, we could not discern a population of Aβ aggregates ( e.g . protofibrils) accessible to one antibody but not the other two. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody lecanemab received the US accelerated approval for mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of Alzheimer disease in January 2023, which was converted into traditional approval in June 2023. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The volatile oil of ATR mitigates dementia through multiple pathways, including reducing abnormal protein aggregation, promoting neurogenesis, inhibiting neuronal apoptosis, regulating neurotransmitters, improving synaptic function, modulating autophagy, countering cellular stress, reducing neuroinflammation, and alleviating vascular risk factors. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Synaptic loss in the brain correlates well with disease severity in Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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