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 1,476–1,489 of 1,489 studies in Treatments (page 60 of 60) · 29,380 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.

Early Amyloid-β Toxicity Disrupts Nervous System Connectivity During Aging in Caenorhabditis elegans

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-07-29

Our experiments revealed that nAβ expressing animals exhibit a unique loss of positively correlated neuron connectivity, premature disruption of system wide dynamics, and reduced overall neuronal activity. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Computational Screening of FDA-Approved Drugs as Potential BACE1 Inhibitors for Alzheimer's Disease Drug Repurposing

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-07-27

Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder affecting over 55 million people worldwide, with no disease-modifying treatments currently approved. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

H. cheirifolia phenolic extracts exhibit potent, mechanism-specific antioxidant activity and promising AChE inhibition, validating traditional use in neurological complaints. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Treatment Effects of Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Alzheimer’s Disease: a Causal Machine Learning Approach

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-02-12

A bstract INTRODUCTION Treatment response in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) varies substantially across patients, yet no validated frameworks exist to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) from observational data while controlling for confounding bias. 2 key findings →

Participants: 4,049 Evidence: low

Real-World Performance of Urine β-amyloid Test Kits in Multiple Hospital Clinics and Neighborhood Communities of China

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-05-15

Our findings confirm the diagnostic value of urinary β-amyloid protein detection in MCI and AD-related dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 51,187 Evidence: high

The FDA gave lecanemab (Leqembi) accelerated approval based on Phase 2 data showing it reduced amyloid plaque in the brain, ahead of full Phase 3 results. 3 key findings →

Design: regulatory decision Evidence: early

FDA Approves Treatment for Adults with Alzheimer's Disease (Kisunla / donanemab-azbt)

⚠ Regulatory decision — not a study alzhub usefulness score 15 out of 100. U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024-07-02

The FDA approved donanemab (Kisunla) as a monthly IV infusion for people with early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia) with confirmed amyloid plaques. 3 key findings →

Design: regulatory decision Evidence: moderate

Leqembi Recommended for Treatment of Early Alzheimer's Disease (CHMP re-examination, reversing July 2024 refusal)

⚠ Regulatory decision — not a study alzhub usefulness score 15 out of 100. European Medicines Agency 2024-11-14

The EMA's human medicines committee (CHMP) initially refused to approve lecanemab in the EU in July 2024, judging that its modest effect on cognitive decline did not outweigh ARIA risk in the broad early-Alzheimer's population studied. 3 key findings →

Design: regulatory decision Evidence: moderate

Kisunla (donanemab) — EU Marketing Authorization (EPAR), following CHMP re-examination

⚠ Regulatory decision — not a study alzhub usefulness score 15 out of 100. European Medicines Agency 2025-09-24

The EMA initially recommended against approving donanemab in March 2025, again on ARIA risk-benefit grounds, then reversed itself after re-examination: the CHMP issued a positive opinion on July 24, 2025, and the European Commission granted marketing authorization on September 24, 2025, restricted to early-Alzheimer's patients with one or no copy of the ApoE4 gene. 3 key findings →

Design: regulatory decision Evidence: moderate

FDA Converts Novel Alzheimer's Disease Treatment to Traditional Approval

⚠ Regulatory decision — not a study alzhub usefulness score 14 out of 100. U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2023-07-06

The FDA converted lecanemab (Leqembi) from accelerated to full traditional approval after the Phase 3 Clarity AD trial (1,795 patients) confirmed it slowed cognitive decline, making it the first amyloid-targeting antibody to reach full approval for Alzheimer's. The drug carries a boxed warning for ARIA, brain swelling or bleeding that is usually detected on routine MRI and is more common in people with two copies of the ApoE ε4 gene or those on blood thinners. 3 key findings →

Design: regulatory decision Evidence: moderate

Biogen to Realign Resources for Alzheimer's Disease Franchise (Aduhelm discontinuation)

⚠ Press release — not a study alzhub usefulness score 11 out of 100. Biogen Inc. press release 2024-01-31

On January 31, 2024, Biogen announced it would discontinue development and sales of Aduhelm (aducanumab) and end the mandatory post-approval ENVISION confirmatory trial, redirecting resources to lecanemab (Leqembi) and other pipeline drugs, including two tau-targeting compounds (BIIB080, BIIB113). 3 key findings →

Design: company announcement

CMS's national policy covers FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (such as lecanemab and donanemab) for Medicare patients with a documented diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or mild Alzheimer's dementia and confirmed amyloid pathology, under a framework called 'Coverage with Evidence Development.' 3 key findings →

Design: coverage determination

↑ 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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