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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,126–1,150 of 1,489 studies in Treatments(page 46 of 60)· 28,580 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; 14,058 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.
This approach would not only focus on blocking early events in pathogenesis, but also adequately correct for loss of synapses, substrates for neuroprotective pathways (e.g., docosahexaenoic acid), defects in energy metabolism, and adverse consequences of inappropriate compensatory responses (aberrant sprouting). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Drugs·2023-03-01
Lecanemab (lecanemab-irmb; LEQEMBI™) is a humanized immunoglobulin gamma 1 (IgG1) against aggregated soluble and insoluble forms of amyloid-β peptide. 5 key findings →
Although its etiology is not completely known, several factors including deficits of acetylcholine, β-amyloid deposits, τ-protein phosphorylation, oxidative stress, and neuroinflammation are considered to play significant roles in the pathophysiology of this disease. 1 key finding →
The ε4 allele of the apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) gene is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and greatly influences the development of amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology. 3 key findings →
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) represent the major severe side effect of amyloid-beta (Aβ) immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Despite presence of substantial evidence suggesting the pivotal role of amyloid (Aβ) in Alzheimer's disease (AD), very few therapeutic agents have been able to ameliorate the disease. 2 key findings →
Decades of research into anti-Aβ immunotherapies provide evidence for increased Aβ clearance from the brain; however, this is frequently accompanied by complicated vascular deficits. 5 key findings →
Currently, three antibeta amyloid (Aβ) mAbs are approved or under examination in USA and in Europe for the treatment of patients with early Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Acetylcholinesterase is involved in the termination of impulse transmission by rapid hydrolysis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in numerous cholinergic pathways in the central and peripheral nervous systems. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neuropharmacology·2020-10-06
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of adult-onset dementia is characterized by a progressive decline of cognitive functions accompanied by behavioral manifestations. 1 key finding →
This review describes the preclinical mechanisms that may underlie the increased therapeutic benefit of combination therapy-with the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, memantine, and an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI)-for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neuropharmacology·1995-10-01
The data from the present study do not lend support to the idea that low affinity, open channel NMDA receptor blockers are also effective in models of epilepsy at doses having little effect on physiological processes. 5 key findings →
The rivastigmine (RHT) loaded chitosan nanoparticles (CS-RHT NPs) were prepared by ionic gelation method to improve the bioavailability and enhance the uptake of RHT to the brain via intranasal (i.n.) delivery. 3 key findings →
Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) remains a highly viable target for the symptomatic improvement in Alzheimer's disease (AD) because cholinergic deficit is a consistent and early finding in AD. 5 key findings →
Description The American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians developed this guideline to present the available evidence on current pharmacologic treatment of dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2000-02-01
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) proteins Tat and gp120 have been implicated in the pathogenesis of dementia associated with HIV infection. 1 key finding →
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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.