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 873 studies in Drug development (page 17 of 35) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Drug development” covers

Drug development — Candidate treatments on their way through the pipeline, from the laboratory to early human trials.

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.

Repositioning or repurposing drugs account for a substantial part of entering approval pipeline drugs, which indicates that drug repositioning has huge market potential and value. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A drug repositioning algorithm based on a deep autoencoder and adaptive fusion

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. BMC bioinformatics 2021-10-30

In this study, a drug repositioning algorithm based on a deep autoencoder and adaptive fusion was proposed to mitigate the problems of decreased precision and low-efficiency multisource data fusion caused by data sparseness. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Following acute myocardial infarction, re-establishment of coronary perfusion aggravates further injuries in the heart and remote organs including the brain as a consequence of ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury. 1 key finding →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Considering the overall sci-entific evidence presented, it is important to note that GLPs are no longer just antihyperglycemic drugs but are remarkably versatile, with a future in almost every field of medicine. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Growing evidence suggests that agonists of glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor exert neuroprotective and neurorestorative effects across a range of experimental models of neuronal degeneration, and, recently, a pilot clinical trial of Liraglutide in Alzheimer’s disease patients showed improvements in cerebral glucose consumption that signifies disease progression. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alogliptin treatment alleviated LPS-induced cognitive impairment as assessed by Morris water maze and novel object recognition tests. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In MCI/AD, both the CSF and serum samples had significantly elevated mean levels of C-peptide and an incretin, and reduced expression of Visfatin, whereas only CSF showed significant reductions in insulin and leptin and only serum had increased glucagon, PAI-1, and ghrelin. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our results demonstrate that DA5‐CH has neuroprotective effects in the STZ‐induced animal model and that DA5‐CH has potential to treat neurodegenerative disorders such as AD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Intracerebral-ventricular (ICV) injection of streptozotocin (STZ) induces an insulin-resistant brain state that may underlie the neural pathogenesis of sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Growing evidence suggests that type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with age-dependent Alzheimer's disease (AD), the latter of which has even been considered as type 3 diabetes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We describe a clinico-pathological variant of a degenerative disorder involving Broca's, Wernicke's, and supplementary motor areas, which presented as primary progressive aphasia, dysarthria, bucco-facial apraxia, and hearing loss as initial symptoms, followed by organic personality changes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

According to the FDA, aducanumab (Aduhelm), the recently approved anti-Alzheimer drug, reduces the level of cerebral amyloid plaques-a hallmark finding in patients with Alzheimer's disease-and this will result in a reduction in clinical decline. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A century ago, German neurologist Alois Alzheimer documented the first case of Alzheimer's disease (AD), illuminating cognitive impairments associated with the presence of abnormal protein clusters, including amyloid plaques and tau tangles, within the brain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We found that both Adu and SUS reduced the total plaque area in the hippocampus to a similar degree, with no additive effect in the combination treatment (SUS+Adu). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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