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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,176–1,200 of 1,489 studies in Treatments(page 48 of 60)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.
In this report we assessed by docking and molecular dynamics the binding mechanisms of three FDA-approved Alzheimer drugs, inhibitors of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE): donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine. 5 key findings →
Cholinergic dysfunction, demonstrated in the late 1970s and early 1980s, led to the introduction of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) in 1993 (Tacrine) to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission as the first line of treatment against Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
An increase in dementia numbers and global trends in population aging across the world prompts the need for new medications to treat the complex biological dysfunctions, such as neurodegeneration associated with dementia. 1 key finding →
The major pharmacokinetic interactions identified concerned fluoxetine, paroxetine and ketoconazole when used with galantamine or donepezil. 5 key findings →
Patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease showed less cognitive and functional decline with donanemab compared with placebo in a Phase 2 study offering up to 72 weeks of treatment. 3 key findings →
On 7 June , the FDA approved aducanumab, the first new drug for Alzheimer’s disease in almost 20 years—and notably, the first drug with a putative disease‐modifying mechanism for the treatment of this devastating disorder, namely the removal of β‐amyloid (or Aβ) plaques from the brain. 1 key finding →
Aducanumab has recently been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA under its ‘accelerated approval’ pathway (to provide earlier access to treatments that fulfil an unmet need based on a surrogate endpoint) for treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
En junio, la Agencia de Alimentos y medicamentos de los Estados Unidos (FDA) otorgó aprobación mediante vía acelerada al medicamento aducanumab, desarrollado por Biogen, Inc. para tratamiento de la enfermedad de Alzheimer (EA). 3 key findings →
Aducanumab is a human immunoglobulin G1 anti‐amyloid beta (Aβ) antibody currently being evaluated for potential treatment of patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 1 key finding →
With the approval of aducanumab on the “Accelerated Approval Pathway” and the recognition of amyloid load as a surrogate marker, new successful therapeutic approaches will be driven by combination therapy as was the case in oncology after the launch of immune checkpoint inhibitors. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Brain Sciences·2021-11-22
Aducanumab, a human monoclonal antibody, was approved in June of 2021 as the first disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease by the United States Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA). 2 key findings →
There are many who feel that the achievement of a disease-modifying (DM) designation for a drug is an important goal in Alzheimer disease (AD) therapeutics. 5 key findings →
A person affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) gradually loses the ability to perform activities of daily living and becomes dependent on caregivers, thereby having a negative impact on the caregivers' quality of life. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·JAPhA Pharmacotherapy·2025-04-01
This study underscores the importance of vigilant monitoring for ARIA and other neurologic and psychiatric AEs associated with lecanemab in real-world clinical settings. 4 key findings →
The MDC used a combination of CSF tests, blood tests, and amyloid PET scans to scale up AD biomarker testing over the past three years. 1 key finding →
The blood-brain barrier (BBB) displays a highly organized and complex structure, which is important for maintaining brain homeostasis and protecting the brain from foreign molecules or pathogens. 5 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 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.