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 1–24 of 24 studies in Treatments published 2004 · 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.

These results, together with previous studies, suggest that memantine represents a new approach for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 203 Evidence: high

Rivastigmine for dementia associated with Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2004-12-01

The outcomes were better among patients treated with rivastigmine than among those who received placebo; however, the differences between these two groups were moderate and similar to those reported in trials of rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 541 Evidence: low

Efficacy of donepezil in mild cognitive impairment: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2004-08-01

Although significant treatment effects were not seen in the primary efficacy measures, outcomes on secondary measures suggest promising directions for further evaluation of donepezil treatment in patients with MCI. 2 key findings →

Participants: 133 Evidence: high

Cognition averaged 0.8 MMSE (mini-mental state examination) points better (95% CI 0.5-1.2; p<0.0001) and functionality 1.0 BADLS points better (0.5-1.6; p<0.0001) with donepezil over the first 2 years. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The techniques evaluated were person-centered showering and the towel bath (a person-centered, in-bed bag-bath with no-rinse soap). 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Cognitive decline over 36 months of continuous galantamine treatment was substantially less than the predicted cognitive decline of untreated patients with mild to moderate dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high

Challenging the cholinergic system in mild cognitive impairment: a pharmacological fMRI study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. NeuroImage 2004-12-01

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) often represents an early form of Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high

Despite the substantial improvement in apathy scores during the course of the study, there was no clear advantage to the reminiscence-based intervention over the time and attention, one-on-one control intervention. 3 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: high

This study questions the effect of statins on the processing of amyloid precursor protein in humans. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Efficacy of donepezil in early-stage Alzheimer disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2004-12-01

These data suggest significant treatment benefits of donepezil in early-stage Alzheimer disease, supporting the initiation of therapy early in the disease course to improve daily cognitive functioning. 3 key findings →

Participants: 96 Evidence: high

The authors estimated the effects of each of the three commonly used drugs for Alzheimer disease (donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine) in terms of predefined clinical outcomes and trial completion rates, by dosing level, and described differences among them. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The change in threshold did not seem to correlate with dysfunction of inhibitory intracortical cholinergic and GABAergic circuits, nor with the central cholinergic activity. 5 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: low

The neurotransmitter acetylcholine is considered essential for proper functioning of the hippocampus-dependent declarative memory system, and it represents a major neuropharmacological target for the treatment of memory deficits, such as those in Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cerebrovascular disease (CVD), as well as secondary ischemic brain injury from cardiovascular disease, are common causes of dementia and cognitive decline in the elderly. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The management of dementia in Alzheimer's disease has dramatically changed since the development of anti-dementia drugs. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Imaging beta-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in the aging human brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Current pharmaceutical design 2004-01-01

The development of radioligands to image beta-amyloid (A beta) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in vivo in the aging human brain is an important and active area of radiopharmaceutical design. 3 key findings →

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

↑ 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