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 726–750 of 1,489 studies in Treatments (page 30 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.

CSF Abeta1-14, Abeta1-15, and Abeta1-16 increase during gamma-secretase inhibitor treatment in AD, even at doses that do not affect Abeta1-42 or Abeta1-40, probably because of increased substrate availability of the C99 APP stub (APP beta-CTF) induced by gamma-secretase inhibition. 2 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: high

The use of new technologies (i.e., mobile ecological momentary assessments [EMAs], activity tracker) in the PENSA study allows the collection of continuous data on lifestyle behaviors (diet and physical activity) and mood, enabling a personalized design as well as an intensive follow-up of participants. 2 key findings →

Participants: 200 Evidence: high

Overall time and the times for ADL care and supervision can be considered valid estimates. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The cognitive functions of the patients in the CMG and WMG were improved after treatment. 2 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: low

The two groups' baseline characteristics, including age, sex, mean length of education, and disease duration, were comparable, as were their baseline Mini-Mental State Examination scores. 1 key finding →

Participants: 42 Evidence: high

These results are approximately 10 times those usually observed with both nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments and indicate substantial benefits with the management program for advanced AD persons. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Nicotine for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2000-01-01

Nicotine is a cholinergic agonist that acts, not only post-synaptically, but also releases pre-synaptic acetylcholine, and in animal models has been shown to reverse spatial memory decline in rats with lesion in the medial septal nucleus and to show recovery on memory in aged monkeys. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review 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

This is the first study to investigate urine biomarker through exercise intervention. 3 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Thirty medical specialists (geriatricians, n = 23; psychiatrists, n = 4; neurologists, n = 3) from 30 different clinics participated (public, 76.7%; private, 23.3%), including from metropolitan (73.3%), regional (20.0%) and rural (6.7%) areas. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 23 Evidence: low

A total of 282 participants were followed for an average of 2.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 1.3 years). 5 key findings →

Participants: 282 Evidence: low

This special issue of Alzheimer's & Dementia celebrates the accomplishments of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) project as it approaches its 20th anniversary in 2024, supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A plasma protein signature for cerebral amyloid angiopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Acta Neuropathologica 2026-05-20

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a cerebrovascular disorder characterized by the deposition of amyloid-β (Aβ) in the walls of leptomeningeal and cortical blood vessels that increases risk of intracerebral hemorrhages and progressive cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Participants: 251 Evidence: moderate

Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease 2023-03-22

Lecanemab (Leqembi®) is approved in the United States for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) to be initiated in early AD (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] due to AD or mild AD dementia) with confirmed brain amyloid pathology.

Patients wore CPAP for 4.8 hours per night. 2 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Several studies have shown that cognitive intervention may be beneficial for people with Alzheimer disease (AD), but literature reviews conducted so far, have yielded mixed and inconclusive results. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial 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

This paper is based on a presentation made during the Indiana Alzheimer Disease Center's Symposium on Mild Cognitive Impairment on April 19, 2008. 3 key findings →

Participants: 3,000 Evidence: high

Physostigmine demonstrated a statistically significant benefit compared with placebo on a clinical global rating of change and an objective test of cognitive function. 3 key findings →

Participants: 850 Evidence: high

One of the five patients with AD treated with LDRT experienced a temporary improvement in SNSB-II. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The greatest advantage of the RSD proposed in this article is its ability to critically address the question on a DM effect. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high

The neuroprotective glial cell modulator propentofylline has been used in clinical trials involving more than 800 patients with vascular dementia (VaD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 800 Evidence: high

SiD represents a new resource for promoting safety among people with dementia, and high acceptability was achieved in a pilot trial. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high

Studies suggest that reminiscence strategies combined with an intergenerational approach may yield significant social and mental health benefits for participants. 4 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