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
29,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 926–950 of 1,489 studies in Treatments(page 38 of 60)· 29,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)
From OpenAlex; 14,855 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 43 out of 100.·Drugs·2023-04-15
Two anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (MABs)-lecanemab (Leqembi ® ) and aducanumab (Aduhelm ® )-have been approved in the USA for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Currently, there is no disease-modifying treatment available for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease (AD and PD) and that includes the highly controversial approval of the Aβ-targeting antibody aducanumab for the treatment of AD. 5 key findings →
A large body of clinical and nonclinical evidence supports the role of neurotoxic soluble beta amyloid (amyloid, Aβ) oligomers as upstream pathogenic drivers of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative old age disease that is complex, multifactorial, unalterable, and progressive in nature. 1 key finding →
Aducanumab (Aduhelm) is approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease or mild AD dementia. 2 key findings →
After years of failed attempts to develop a disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer's disease, consistent evidence in support of clinical efficacy was finally presented for a monoclonal antibody targeting the amyloid-β protofibrils. 2 key findings →
Currently, enhancement of cholinergic neurotransmission via cholinesterase inhibitors represents the main available approach to treat cognitive and behavioural symptoms of the early as well as late stages of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
A single dose of solanezumab was generally well tolerated, although infusion reactions similar to those seen with administration of other proteins may occur with higher doses. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·mAbs·2023-01-01
There are few treatments that slow neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and while therapeutic antibodies are being investigated in clinical trials for AD treatment, their access to the central nervous system is restricted by the blood-brain barrier. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·PLoS biology·2022-07-21
Strong genetic evidence supports an imbalance between production and clearance of amyloid β-protein (Aβ) in people with Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →
The repeated failures of amyloid-targeting therapies have challenged our narrow understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis and inspired wide-ranging investigations into the underlying mechanisms of disease. 1 key finding →
Scientific advances over the last four decades have steadily infused the Alzheimer's disease (AD) field with great optimism that therapies targeting Aβ, amyloid, tau, and innate immune activation states in the brain would provide disease modification. 1 key finding →
We identify Clu as an astrocyte-derived synaptogenic and anti-amyloid factor; the combination of these activities may influence the progression of late-onset AD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2023-07-26
With recent data demonstrating that lecanemab treatment can slow cognitive and functional decline in early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD), it is widely anticipated that this drug and potentially other monoclonal antibody infusions targeting β-amyloid protein will imminently be realistic options for some patients with AD. 1 key finding →
Our study establishes a connection between Aβ antibodies engaged at CAA deposits, the activation of perivascular macrophages, and the upregulation of genes involved in vascular permeability. 4 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%),
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.
1,037 records (3.5% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.