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 451–475 of 1,489 studies in Treatments (page 19 of 60) · 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 “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.

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 →

Participants: 27 Evidence: high

ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: overview and initial results

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2006-10-01

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 →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 644 Evidence: high

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 →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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 →

Participants: 63 Evidence: high

Finding positive gains reduces depressive symptoms and burden and promotespsychological well-being primarily through enhancing self-efficacy in controlling upsetting thoughts. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

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 →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high

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 →

Participants: 146 Evidence: high

Parental History of Memory Impairment and β-Amyloid in Cognitively Unimpaired Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub 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 →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 455 Evidence: high

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 →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 255 Evidence: high

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 →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 23 Evidence: high

One hundred two (37.9%) participants were amyloid positive. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 269 Evidence: high

This study shows that Hcy levels could modify the association between red blood cell n-3 PUFA and executive function. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,680 Evidence: high

Choline alfoscerate exhibits additional cognitive improvement in both cognitive and noncognitive domains, supporting the findings of the ASCOMALVA trial. 2 key findings →

Participants: 119 Evidence: low

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 →

Participants: 844 Evidence: high

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 →

Participants: 2,726 Evidence: low

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 →

Design: case-control Participants: 139,103 Evidence: moderate

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 →

Evidence: high

Early Statin Use and the Progression of Alzheimer Disease: A Total Population-Based Case-Control Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub 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 →

Design: randomized controlled trial 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
  • 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