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 1–25 of 27 studies in Treatments with an author at Columbia University (US) (page 1 of 2) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 27 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Treatments” covers

Treatments — Drug and non-drug treatment research — what was tested, in whom, and what changed — plus the approvals and coverage decisions that followed.

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.

Two phase 3 trials of bapineuzumab in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 85 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2014-01-01

Bapineuzumab did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with Alzheimer's disease, despite treatment differences in biomarkers observed in APOE ε4 carriers. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,090 Evidence: high

Effect of citalopram on agitation in Alzheimer disease: the CitAD randomized clinical trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100. JAMA 2014-02-01

Among patients with probable Alzheimer disease and agitation who were receiving psychosocial intervention, the addition of citalopram compared with placebo significantly reduced agitation and caregiver distress; however, cognitive and cardiac adverse effects of citalopram may limit its practical application at the dosage of 30 mg per day. 5 key findings →

Participants: 186 Evidence: high

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cognitive impairment are 2 of the most common chronic conditions found in persons aged > or = 60 years. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,977 Evidence: high

Cardiovascular risk and memory in non-demented elderly women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2008-09-21

These findings suggest that subtle elevation of CHD risk may negatively affect memory functioning even in otherwise healthy, non-demented older women without a history of heart disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 375 Evidence: high

This study demonstrated statistically significant differences between physostigmine and placebo on both a performance-based cognitive functioning instrument and a clinician's global evaluation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 366 Evidence: high

Estrogen replacement therapy for 1 year did not slow disease progression nor did it improve global, cognitive, or functional outcomes in women with mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 42 Evidence: high

We sent invitations to 91,433 households; 5542 (6.1%) responded, 2120 completed the Baseline Survey (78.5% online; 21.5% via computer-assisted telephone interview), and 2087 were deemed eligible, yielding a response rate of 2.3%. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 374 Evidence: high

Effectiveness of a modified Continuum curriculum for medical students: a randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2011-01-01

The Continuum: Dementia for Medical Students curriculum provided an inexpensive and readily implementable means for improving medical knowledge of dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

Considering several covariates together allowed the identification of responders. 2 key findings →

Participants: 186 Evidence: low

Online education involving a celebrity may be an effective strategy for educating college students about AD risk reduction strategies. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 721 Evidence: high

Effective counseling and support interventions can reduce symptoms of depression in caregivers when patients are taking donepezil. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This report describes the rationale and design of a clinical trial using selegiline (10 mg/day) and alpha-tocopherol (2,000 IU/day) to slow the progression of dementia in Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

This study will provide clinically relevant data on the likelihood and time to relapse, and predictors of relapse, in patients switched from risperidone to placebo after response to risperidone treatment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Measurement of HL plasma levels may have potential usefulness as an adjunct in monitoring treatment response to oral HL in AD patients with psychosis or disruptive behavior. 5 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: high

Tensions exist between abstract ethical principles regarding decision-making "standards" and their translation into research decisions. 3 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: high

A substantial proportion of persons with AD who were thought incapable of consenting to lower-risk or higher-risk studies have preserved capacity for appointing a research proxy. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

We examined how an Alzheimer disease (AD) family history assessment as compared to a risk assessment incorporating the absence of a disease-associated susceptibility allele affected risk perception among adult children with a family history of AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: high

We will use results from this study to develop the first live video telehealth dyadic resiliency intervention focused on the prevention of chronic emotional distress in couples shortly after ADRD diagnoses. 2 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

Run-in periods in randomized trials: implications for the application of results in clinical practice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. JAMA 1998-01-01

Prerandomization run-in periods are being used to select or exclude patients in an increasing number of clinical trials, but the implications of run-in periods for interpreting the results of clinical trials and applying these results in clinical practice have not been systematically examined. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

How experienced psychiatrists view the capacity of patients with Alzheimer disease for consenting to research and for appointing a proxy may be related to the patients' conceptualization and memory functioning. 1 key finding →

Participants: 77 Evidence: high

Under-reporting of cardiovascular events in the rofecoxib Alzheimer disease studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. American heart journal 2012-07-03

In the 3 studies combined, the data indicated that rofecoxib more than tripled the risk of confirmed CVT death (risk ratio = 3.57 [1.48-9.72], P = .004). 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

After its completion in 2028, the EARHLI trial should offer evidence on the effect of hearing treatment versus a health education control on cognitive performance, social engagement, and brain organization/connectivity in 55- to 75-year-old community-dwelling adults with early ARHL and amnestic mild cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

↑ 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events