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 1,426–1,450 of 2,014 studies in Treatments marked Peer-reviewed (page 58 of 81) · 31,780 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.

Empirical evidence suggests that a fair proportion of dementia cases are preventable, that some preventive actions can be taken immediately, and others may soon be implemented. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is characterized by the deposition of amyloid β-protein (Aβ) in the leptomeningeal and cortical blood vessels, which is an age-dependent risk factor for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), ischemic stroke and contributes to cerebrovascular dysfunction leading to cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Amyloid beta peptide (Aβ42) aggregation in the brain is thought to be responsible for the onset of Alzheimer's disease, an insidious condition without an effective treatment or cure. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Deposition of extracellular senile plaques containing amyloid-β is one of the major neuropathological characteristics of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is based on symptoms; however, the challenge is to diagnose AD at the preclinical stage with the application of biomarkers and initiate early treatment (still not widely available). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Aging-associated neurodegenerative diseases, which are characterized by progressive neuronal death and synapses loss in human brain, are rapidly growing affecting millions of people globally. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Multifunctional liposomes (mf-LIPs) having a curcumin-lipid ligand (to target amyloids) together with two ligands to target the transferrin, and the low-density apolipoprotein receptor of the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) on their surface, were previously studied (in vitro) as potential theranostic systems for Alzheimer's disease (AD) (Papadia et al., 2017, Eur. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterised by brain accumulation of toxic protein aggregates, including extracellular amyloid beta (Aβ) plaques, inflammation, neuronal death and progressive cognitive dysfunction. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent advances in immunotherapeutic approaches to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have increased the importance of understanding the exact binding preference of each amyloid-beta (Aβ) antibody employed, since this determines both efficacy and risk for potentially serious adverse events known as amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia worldwide. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of aducanumab (Aduhelm), lecanemab (Leqembi), and donanemab (Kisunla) in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early-stage dementia secondary to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This review provides an updated overview of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) associated with antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events