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 38 studies in Treatments published 2008 (page 1 of 2) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 38 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.

Ginkgo biloba for prevention of dementia: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100. JAMA 2008-11-01

In this study, G. biloba at 120 mg twice a day was not effective in reducing either the overall incidence rate of dementia or AD incidence in elderly individuals with normal cognition or those with MCI. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,587 Evidence: high

In this study of adults with subjective memory impairment, a 6-month program of physical activity provided a modest improvement in cognition over an 18-month follow-up period. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 170 Evidence: high

Inclusion criteria were early AD (mini-mental state examination [MMSE] score between 20 and 26 points or Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) score between 10 and 25 points), taking a stable dose of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (donepezil, galantamine, or rivastigmine) for at least 4 months, a modified Hachinski score of 4 points or less, and CT or MRI results that were consistent with AD. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 78 Evidence: high

Use of naproxen or celecoxib did not improve cognitive function. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

Group differences were seen in skin and subcutaneous tissue concerns (P=.05), including 3 possible drug rashes and 3 reports of hair color change in the treatment groups. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: high

Growth hormone secretagogue MK-677: no clinical effect on AD progression in a randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurology 2008-11-01

Despite evidence of target engagement as indicated by an increase in serum insulin-like growth factor-1, the human growth hormone secretagogue MK-677 25 mg was ineffective at slowing the rate of progression of Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 563 Evidence: high

Cardiovascular risk and memory in non-demented elderly women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2008-09-21

These findings suggest that subtle elevation of CHD risk may negatively affect memory functioning even in otherwise healthy, non-demented older women without a history of heart disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 375 Evidence: high

Treatment of dementia with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine can result in statistically significant but clinically marginal improvement in measures of cognition and global assessment of dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

In this trial, memantine did not show an advantage over placebo based on protocol-specified primary or secondary analyses in patients with mild to moderate AD on stable ChEI regimens. 2 key findings →

Participants: 433 Evidence: high

Early intervention to reduce caregiving behavioral burden and enhance family support and promote healthier behaviors of bereaved AD caregivers may decrease the risk of syndromal or syndromal-becoming-threshold level depression after loss. 3 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: high

In nursing home residents with AD and psychosis, aripiprazole did not confer specific benefits for the treatment of psychotic symptoms; but psychological and behavioral symptoms, including agitation, anxiety, and depression, were improved with aripiprazole, with a low risk of AEs. 4 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: high

Pharmacologic treatments for Alzheimer's disease include the cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Apathy is a common behavioral symptom of Alzheimer's disease (AD), being present in up to 70% of patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Consistent with trials evaluating other cholinesterase inhibitors, rivastigmine did not provide consistent efficacy in probable VaD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 710 Evidence: high

AD patients treated with DHA-rich n-3 FAs supplementation increased their plasma concentrations of DHA (and EPA), which were associated with reduced release of IL-1beta, IL-6, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor from PBMCs. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Effective counseling and support interventions can reduce symptoms of depression in caregivers when patients are taking donepezil. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Patients and their study partners who were enrolled in a clinical trial supported proxy consent both for themselves and as a matter of policy. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

In this study, Triflusal therapy was associated with a significant lower rate of conversion to dementia that is likely to be clinically relevant. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

A plethora of reports suggest that copper (Cu) homeostasis is disturbed in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

The Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer Disease study provides an instructive example of a process to develop risk assessment protocols that are sensitive to the implications of genetic testing for multiple ethnic groups with differing levels of risk. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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