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 40 studies in Treatments published 2010 (page 1 of 2) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 40 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.

Effects of aerobic exercise on mild cognitive impairment: a controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-01-01

Six months of high-intensity aerobic exercise had sex-specific effects on cognition, glucose metabolism, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and trophic activity despite comparable gains in cardiorespiratory fitness and body fat reduction. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Randomized controlled trial of atorvastatin in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: LEADe

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Neurology 2010-03-03

In this large-scale randomized controlled trial evaluating statin therapy as a treatment for mild to moderate Alzheimer disease, atorvastatin was not associated with significant clinical benefit over 72 weeks. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 640 Evidence: high

No evidence of efficacy of 2 mg or 8 mg RSG XR monotherapy in cognition or global function was detected in the APOE-ε4-negative or other analysis populations. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 693 Evidence: high

Sertraline did not demonstrate efficacy for the treatment depression symptoms in patients with AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: high

No significant differences were noted between the two treatments in patients with PDD (3·6 with memantine vs 3·8 with placebo, -0·1 [-0·6 to 0·3]; p=0·576) or in the total population (3·5 with memantine vs 3·8 with placebo, -0·3 [-0·7 to 0·1]; p=0·120). 4 key findings →

Participants: 199 Evidence: low

Pioglitazone was generally well tolerated in this pilot study. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 29 Evidence: high

The findings support the clinical efficacy of CR in early-stage AD. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Among the 158 participants who accurately recalled their Alzheimer disease risk assessment 6 weeks after risk disclosure, 75 (47.5%) believed their Alzheimer disease risk was more than 5% points different from the Alzheimer disease risk estimate they were given. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 158 Evidence: high

The term neuroenhancement refers to improvement in the cognitive, emotional and motivational functions of healthy individuals through, inter alia, the use of drugs. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Vascular care in patients with Alzheimer disease with cerebrovascular lesions slows progression of WMLs. 2 key findings →

Participants: 123 Evidence: high

Sensitivity to psychotropic medications presents a therapeutic challenge when treating neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Hippocampal sections from five patients with Alzheimer's disease enrolled in the AN1792 Phase 2a trial were compared with those from 13 non-immunized Braak-stage and age-matched patients with Alzheimer's disease, and eight age-matched non-demented controls. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of bapineuzumab (AAB-001), a humanized monoclonal antibody to amyloid beta, were evaluated in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease in a phase 1, randomized, third-party unblinded, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose trial. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

Among caregivers, this small randomized controlled trial found that escitalopram use resulted in improvement in depression, resilience, burden and distress, and quality of life. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Effect of an antioxidant drink on homocysteine levels in Alzheimer's patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Journal of the neurological sciences 2010-09-20

The regular ingestion of polyphenols contained in an antioxidant beverage may decrease tHcy plasmatic concentrations in Alzheimer's patients. 1 key finding →

Participants: 100 Evidence: high

The evidence of a preventive treatment effect aimed at vascular risk factors on cognitive decline and dementia in later life is scarce and mostly based on secondary outcome parameters. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

The study will explore the added value of a multifaceted intervention programme and contribute to the design of future interventions for patients with mild dementia and their caregivers. 1 key finding →

Participants: 330 Evidence: high

Forty-eight patients were randomized to treatment with either topiramate or risperidone, and 41 patients (21 of 25 in topiramate group and 20 of 23 in risperidone group) completed the trial. 4 key findings →

Participants: 41 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