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 501–525 of 1,489 studies in Treatments (page 21 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.

Addition of ATX to ongoing cholinesterase-inhibitor therapy was generally well tolerated but did not significantly improve cognitive function. 5 key findings →

Participants: 92 Evidence: high

In moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease (AD), there are significant losses of activities of daily living (ADL). 5 key findings →

Participants: 404 Evidence: high

Earlier NH admission of Australian compared to U.K. and U.S. subjects may be due to differences in health care, NH systems, availability, and affordability. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Donepezil and memantine have similar modest clinical and spectroscopic effect on mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 32 Evidence: high

No registered drug affects the deposition of Aβ in the brain of AD patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

These responder analyses may assist clinicians in evaluating the impact of memantine in a relevant clinical scenario, i.e., in patients with AD previously stabilized on a cholinesterase inhibitor. 3 key findings →

Participants: 404 Evidence: high

Memantine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, is approved in the United States and Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer disease (AD) and has also been investigated in patients with mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

The authors believe these design elements are important features to be included in trials of depression and other neuropsychiatric disturbances in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

ABT-089, an α4β2 neuronal nicotinic receptor partial agonist, was evaluated for efficacy and safety in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease patients receiving stable doses of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 337 Evidence: high

The design decisions made for ADMET are important elements to be considered in trials assessing the safety and efficacy of medications for clinically significant apathy in Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

In AD patients with symptoms of psychosis, agitation, or aggressive behavior, medications can have a small but significant impact on caregiver burden. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 361 Evidence: high

Improving comfort in people with dementia and pneumonia: a cluster randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. BMC medicine 2016-08-11

When compared to usual care, the practice guideline for optimal symptom relief did not relieve discomfort and symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high

Because of the exploratory nature of the analyses and the small sample sizes for subgroup analysis there is the need for caution in interpreting these data. 2 key findings →

Participants: 111 Evidence: high

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) and memantine are commonly used in the management of dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Hippocampal sections from five patients with Alzheimer's disease enrolled in the AN1792 Phase 2a trial were compared with those from 13 non-immunized Braak-stage and age-matched patients with Alzheimer's disease, and eight age-matched non-demented controls. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Detection and treatment of Alzheimer's disease in its preclinical stage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Nature aging 2023-05-18

Longitudinal multimodal biomarker studies reveal that the continuum of Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes a long latent phase, referred to as preclinical AD, which precedes the onset of symptoms by decades. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

To review the optimality and safety of different anti-Amyloid- β (Aβ) immunotherapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 5,141 Evidence: high

Atraumatic convexal subarachnoid hemorrhage (cSAH) in elderly patients is a rare entity that has been associated with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) and intracerebral hematomas (ICH). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate

Our results demonstrate that 1-h daily treatment with Cognito's Evoked Gamma Therapy System (CogTx-001) was safe and well-tolerated and demonstrated potential clinical benefits in mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 76 Evidence: high

Four signal calculation methods were used to assess potential adverse reaction signals of lecanemab and aducanumab. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,409 Evidence: low

BackgroundLecanemab reduces amyloid levels and modestly slows cognitive decline in a large cohort of early Alzheimer's disease (AD) but lacks real-world safety data in Chinese population. 3 key findings →

Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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