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 26–50 of 71 studies in Treatments published 2018 (page 2 of 3) · 31,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 71 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.

Use of potentially inappropriate medications in Australian nursing home residents with advanced dementia is common. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 65 Evidence: high

SYGRAVA is the first randomized trial to determine whether programmable ASDs reduce complications of drainage compared to fixed ASDs in patients with iNPH. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 306 Evidence: high

The present study showed the potential use of IY intervention in reducing stress, anxiety, and depression. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Improving quality and delivery of care for people with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) requires a comprehensive research agenda that encompasses the entire care continuum. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This study is the first clinical trial to examine the efficacy of combined physical and cognitive exercise on cognitive function in older ICU survivors with delirium. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

In patients treated up to 36 months, amyloid plaque levels continued to decrease in a dose- and time-dependent manner, with levels in the 10 mg/kg fixed-dose group reaching and remaining below a quantitative cut-point discriminating a positive/negative scan. 1 Reduced amyloid plaque levels were also observed in patients switched from placebo to aducanumab during the LTE. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

We expect to demonstrate that personalized TMS intervention has a measurable positive impact in cognition, emotion, daily living activities and brain connectivity, thus representing a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This article primarily describes the design of a monocentre, randomized, doubleblind trial to be conducted in France to evaluate the effect of the combination of tDCS and cognitive training on apathy compared to a group treated exclusively by cognitive training (sham tDCS). 3 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: high

The Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable met in November 2016 to explore how best to measure changes in cognition and function in the preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clinicians must weigh benefits against adverse events when determining the course of therapy, as recommendations for cholinesterase inhibitors in advanced AD remain unclear and vary with different guidelines. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Progressive accumulation of misfolded amyloid proteins in intracellular and extracellular spaces is one of the principal reasons for synaptic damage and impairment of neuronal communication in several neurodegenerative diseases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Based on the improved efficacy/safety profile in non-clinical models of SAR228810, a first-in-man single and multiple dose administration clinical study has been initiated in AD patients. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the presence in the brain of extracellular amyloid-β protein (Aβ) and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles composed of hyperphosphorylated tau protein. 4 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
  • 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,052 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