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 1–25 of 30 studies in Treatments published 2003 (page 1 of 2) · 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.

Cholinergic dysfunction is also associated with neuropsychiatric and functional deficits, but results from randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors are conflicting. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 29 Evidence: high

Exercise plus behavioral management in patients with Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA 2003-10-01

Exercise training for patients with Alzheimer disease combined with teaching caregivers how to manage behavioral problems may help decrease the frailty and behavioral impairment that are often prevalent in patients with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Treatment with ChEIs results in a modest but significant therapeutic effect and modestly but significantly higher rates of adverse events and discontinuation of treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,159 Evidence: high

The mean (SD) time between the date of randomization into WHI and the last Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MSE) for all WHIMS participants was 4.05 (1.19) years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,229 Evidence: high

Subject to the usual caveats inherent in studies with small sample size, this pilot phase 2 study supports further investigation of this novel treatment strategy using a metal-protein-attenuating compound. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

Memantine for dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2003-01-01

Main results Effect of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: analysis of the change from baseline at 28 weeks gave statistically significant results in favour of memantine for 20 mg/day on cognition (MD: 6.1. 95% CI 2.99 to 9.21, P=0.0001) activities of daily living (MD 2.10, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.74, p=0.01) and in the global clinical impression of change measured by the CIBIC-Plus at 28 weeks (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.02, p=0.04), in all cases the analysis was the ITT-LOCF population (Reisberg 2000). 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Use of donepezil by AD patients resulted in significant delays in NHP. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,115 Evidence: high

The mean (SD) age in the CA group was 72.2(7.5) years (range, 60-80 years), and in the placebo group it was 71.7 (7.4) years(range, 60-80 years). 3 key findings →

Participants: 261 Evidence: high

The ADL benefits in AD patients treated with donepezil were associated with less caregiving time and lower levels of caregiver stress. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Advances in genetic research have provided a basis for susceptibility testing for Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 160 Evidence: high

Effects of rofecoxib or naproxen vs placebo on Alzheimer disease progression: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA 2003-06-01

The results of this study indicate that rofecoxib or low-dose naproxen does not slow cognitive decline in patients with mild-to-moderate AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 474 Evidence: high

In 1996, Kanowski et al. reported about the beneficial effects of ginkgo biloba special extract EGb 761 (240 mg/day) in outpatients with pre-senile and senile primary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) and multi-infarct dementia (MID) of mild to moderate severity. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Study selection The authors developed eight key questions representing a logical chain between screening and improved health outcomes, along with eligibility criteria for admissible evidence for each question. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

In the sertraline-treated group 9 patients (38%) were full responders and 11 (46%) were partial responders compared with 3 (20%) and 4 (15%), respectively, in the placebo-treated group (P =.007). 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Measurement of HL plasma levels may have potential usefulness as an adjunct in monitoring treatment response to oral HL in AD patients with psychosis or disruptive behavior. 5 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: high

The construct of psychosis of dementia was validated, and the severity of both psychosis and aggressiveness was reduced with risperidone treatment in a robust and dose-related way, with a continuing response over the 12-week trial period. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

The glutamatergic system and Alzheimer's disease: therapeutic implications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. CNS drugs 2003-01-01

Alzheimer's disease affects nearly 5 million Americans currently and, as a result of the baby boomer cohort, is predicted to affect 14 million Americans and 22 million persons totally worldwide in just a few decades. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

High-dose vitamin supplementation reduces homocysteine levels in patients with AD. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 69 Evidence: high

Although much maligned, the amyloid-beta (Abeta) protein has been shown to possess a number of trophic properties that emanate from the protein's ability to bind Cu, Fe and Zn. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

beta-Amyloid aggregation induced by human acetylcholinesterase: inhibition studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Biochemical pharmacology 2003-02-01

The aggregation of beta-amyloid (1-40) (Abeta) induced by human recombinant acetylcholinesterase (HuAChE) was studied by means of circular dichroism (CD) and by thioflavin T fluorescence spectroscopy. 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