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 1,176–1,200 of 1,489 studies in Treatments (page 48 of 60) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

In the aducanumab-treated mice, we identified 17 significantly regulated proteins that were associated with 1) mitochondria and metabolism (ACAT2, ATP5J, ETFA, EXOG, HK1, NDUFA4, NDUFS7, PLCB1, PPP2R4), 2) cytoskeleton and axons (ADD1, CAPZB, DPYSL3, MAG), 3) stress response (HIST1H1C/HIST1H1D, HSPA12A), and 4) AβPP trafficking/processing (CD81, GDI2). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Donanemab leads to less decline in early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. The Brown University Psychopharmacology Update 2021-06-04

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 →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Aducanumab: a new phase in therapeutic development for Alzheimer’s disease?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. EMBO Molecular Medicine 2021-08-02

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 →

Evidence: low

Aducanumab and disease modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry 2021-07

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 →

Evidence: low

caso de aducanumab ¿Más esperanza que ciencia?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. ARS MEDICA Revista de Ciencias Médicas 2021-08-26

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: high

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Participants: 1,307,937 Evidence: low

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 →

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 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