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 1,326–1,350 of 1,489 studies in Treatments (page 54 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.

A design strategy to convert a dual-binding site AChE inhibitor into triple functional compounds with promising in vitro profile against multifactorial syndromes, such as Alzheimer's disease, is proposed. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors as disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Current medicinal chemistry 2008-01-01

The therapeutic arsenal for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains confined to a group of four inhibitors of AChE and one NMDA receptor antagonist, which are used to provide a relief of the very late symptoms of the dementia, i.e. the cognitive and functional decline. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent phase 3 clinical trials have shown that memantine is effective in the treatment of both mild and moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease and possibly vascular dementia (multi-infarct dementia). 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Disruption of axonal transport is a hallmark of several neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The pathological processes of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases engender synaptic and neuronal cell damage. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A new family of multitarget molecules able to interact with acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE), as well as with monoamino oxidase (MAO) A and B, has been synthesized. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors: novel activities of old molecules

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Pharmacological research 2004-10-01

The therapeutic approach for improving the cognitive function in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is mainly based on the potentiation of central cholinergic activity and is achieved clinically by the use of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors such as tacrine, donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and other drugs currently in clinical trials. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amantadine and memantine are NMDA receptor antagonists with neuroprotective properties

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. PubMed 1994-01-01

The pharmacological inhibition of excitatory amino acid neurotransmission has evolved to be a major topic in neuropharmacology since enhanced synaptic action of glutamate and possibly other related neurotransmitters has been suggested to play a role both in acute neurological conditions such as ischemia and epilepsy and in chronic degenerative neurological diseases including Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease and Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Two suggested clinical trial designs for assessing progression of Alzheimer disease are the randomized withdrawal design and the randomized start design. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Zusammenfassung Die Alzheimer Krankheit (AD) ist eine schwere und fortschreitende neurodegenerative Erkrankung des Gehirns, die bislang mit primär nur symptomatisch wirksamen medikamentösen und nicht-medikamentösen Therapieformen als Standardtherapie behandelt wird. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

To determine the degree to which patients with early Alzheimer disease (AD) being evaluated for anti-amyloid antibody therapies (AATs) adhere to optimal brain-health/lifestyle recommendations. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In 2022, 726 patients were included. The average age was 82.2 years, with a majority of women (68.5%). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 726 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia, is a multifaceted neurodegenerative disorder characterized by amyloid-beta (Aβ) aggregation, tau pathology, and neuroinflammation. 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