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 1,151–1,175 of 1,489 studies in Treatments (page 47 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)

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.

The excitotoxin quinolinic acid induces tau phosphorylation in human neurons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. PloS one 2009-07-22

Some of the tryptophan catabolites produced through the kynurenine pathway (KP), and more particularly the excitotoxin quinolinic acid (QA), are likely to play a role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The glutamatergic system and Alzheimer's disease: therapeutic implications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. CNS drugs 2003-01-01

Alzheimer's disease affects nearly 5 million Americans currently and, as a result of the baby boomer cohort, is predicted to affect 14 million Americans and 22 million persons totally worldwide in just a few decades. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Covarying for baseline scores, age, education, and duration of illness, the COMBO group had significantly lower mean annualized rates of deterioration in BDS and ADL scores compared with the CI (P<0.001; Cohen's dBDS=0.10-0.34 and dADL=0.23-0.46 at 1 to 2 y) and NO-RX groups (P<0.001; Cohen's dBDS=0.56-0.73 and dADL=0.32-0.48 at 1 to 2 y). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Telehealth Rehabilitation for Cognitive Impairment: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. JMIR research protocols 2018-02-08

Delivery of cognitive rehabilitation by telehealth appeared feasible but required modifications such as greater reliance on caregivers and clients for manipulating materials. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

High-dose vitamin supplementation reduces homocysteine levels in patients with AD. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 69 Evidence: high

Donepezil and silymarin improved lipid profile associated with increased NAA/Cr, and decreased mI/Cr, in AD patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

The ASURE trial design is discussed, with a particular focus on fluid biomarkers, EEG, and CFC as endpoints. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Although β-site APP-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) and secretase inhibitors did not achieve success in clinical trials because of mechanism-based toxicity and cognitive impairment, new monoclonal antibodies such as lecanemab and donanemab have shown high amyloid plaque clearance and reduced cognitive deterioration. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

RESUMO A Doença de Alzheimer (DA) é uma condição progressiva caracterizada pelo acúmulo de placas de beta-amiloide e emaranhados neurofibrilares de proteína tau, resultando em perda sináptica e morte neuronal. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The recent failure of several clinical trials on anti-β-amyloid (Aβ) drugs in Alzheimer's disease (AD) suggested earlier intervention in the disease course. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The French Minister of Health published a decree on May 29th of 2018 removing the drugs used to fight against symptoms due to Alzheimer's disease (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, memantine) from the list of available reimbursed drugs. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease is a neuropathological disease with symptoms such as language problems, confusion as to place or time, loss of interest in activities, which were previously enjoyed, behavioral changes, and memory loss. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This review is devoted to comparative pharmacological analysis of synthetic drugs such as memantine and its isomers, as well as tacrine, velnacrine, rivastigmine, and donepezil, with natural alkaloids, terpenoids, and triterpenoid peroxides, which are used to treat dementia, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, myasthenia gravis and other neurodegenerative diseases. 3 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
  • 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 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed