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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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.
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 451–475 of 1,489 studies in Treatments(page 19 of 60)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Brain stimulation·2022-06-11
Our results depict that 5 Hz rTMS of the bilateral cerebellum is a promising, non-invasive treatment of cognitive dysfunction in AD patients. 4 key findings →
This initial report describes the ongoing 4-year longitudinal study and provides baseline results, which confirm the feasibility of obtaining home-based clinical information via mail or telephone. 2 key findings →
Patients and their study partners who were enrolled in a clinical trial supported proxy consent both for themselves and as a matter of policy. 2 key findings →
At 6 mo, the n-3 FA group displayed marked increases in DHA and EPA plasma concentrations (2.6- and 3.5-fold), as well as decreased methylation in 2 out of 4 CpG sites ( P r = -0.25, P = 0.045; and r = -0.26, P = 0.041, respectively), but not to changes in plasma DHA concentration, and were not related to apolipoprotein E-4 allele frequency. 4 key findings →
These findings have implications for clinical practice and suggest that presence of a caregiver may be an important modifying variable on patient outcomes to examine in future research. 3 key findings →
Bapineuzumab SC once-monthly did not demonstrate significant treatment difference over placebo on cerebral amyloid signal at one year but was well-tolerated. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2024-08-01
Of 4413 individuals (mean [SD] age, 71.27 [4.66] years, 2617 women [59.3%]), mean Aβ-PET was elevated in individuals with history of memory impairment in both parents (n = 455; mean [SD] standardized uptake value ratio [SUVR] = 1.12 [0.19]; Wilcoxon P = 1.1 × 10-5) and in those with only maternal history (n = 1772; mean [SD] SUVR = 1.10 [0.19]; Wilcoxon P = 2.70 × 10-5) compared with those with only paternal history (n = 632; mean [SD] SUVR = 1.08 [0.18]; Wilcoxon P = 1.1 × 10-5) or no family history (n = 1554; mean [SD] SUVR = 1.08 [0.19]; Wilcoxon P = 1.1 × 10-5). 3 key findings →
This study suggests that initiation of a low dose of antihypertensive treatment does not significantly increase the risk of OH in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Radiology·2025-06-01
Cognitive performance in mild AD improved following tACS, with increased FC within cortical networks and between the hippocampus and specific cortical regions. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Medicine·2024-06-01
Choline alfoscerate exhibits additional cognitive improvement in both cognitive and noncognitive domains, supporting the findings of the ASCOMALVA trial. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·JAMA health forum·2025-08-01
Of 44 844 patients invited to the APT Webstudy, the mean (SD) age was 64.7 (10.1) years, 25 447 (56.8%) were women, 25 044 (55.8%) had Medicaid insurance, 11 347 (25.3%) were Hispanic/Latino, 9526 (21.2%) were non-Hispanic Asian, 6044 (13.5%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 12 109 (27%) were non-Hispanic White. 2 key findings →
Among 1005 amyloid-positive participants, 24.6% were eligible for lecanemab and 28.0% for donanemab (9.1% and 10.3% of the initial sample). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-10-01
In this national case-control study of nursing home residents with ADRD receiving hospice care, initiation of benzodiazepine or antipsychotic use was associated with increased 180-day mortality. 5 key findings →
Atorvastatin therapy may be of benefit in the treatment of mild-to-moderately affected AD patients, but the level of benefit produced may be predicated on earlier treatment, an individual's apolipoprotein E genotype or whether the patient exhibits elevated cholesterol levels. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Medicine·2015-11-01
The protective effect of statin on Alzheimer disease (AD) is still controversial, probably due to the debate about when to start the use of statin and the lack of any large-scale randomized evidence that actually supports the hypothesis. 2 key findings →
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.