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 39 studies in Treatments published 2012 (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.

Previous Cochrane reviews have considered the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in both Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,236 Evidence: high

Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) is associated with cholinergic deficits. 4 key findings →

Participants: 550 Evidence: high

The intent-to-treat analysis indicated a favorable effect of GHRH on cognition (P=.03), which was comparable in adults with MCI and healthy older adults. 1 key finding →

Participants: 152 Evidence: high

Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers may be useful to monitor the effects of novel disease-modifying anti-Aβ drugs in clinical trials. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 19 Evidence: high

Donepezil and memantine for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2012-03-01

In patients with moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease, continued treatment with donepezil was associated with cognitive benefits that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference and with significant functional benefits over the course of 12 months. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We suggest that 6 months of dietary n-3 FA supplementation affected expression of genes that might influence inflammatory processes and could be of significance for AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: high

Treatment with sertraline in patients with dAD is not associated with greater improvement in cognition at week 24 than treatment with placebo. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: high

Treatment with celecoxib or naproxen did not improve depressive symptoms over time compared with placebo. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,528 Evidence: high

Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is a promising treatment approach for older adults with dementia because it aims at supporting the management of day-to-day problems. 2 key findings →

Participants: 201 Evidence: high

The emphasis on benefits, rather than losses and difficulties, provides a new dimension to the way interventions for caregivers can be conceptualized and delivered. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

A condensed protocol for communicating genetic risk for Alzheimer disease achieved similar educational results as an extended protocol in this study. 3 key findings →

Participants: 280 Evidence: high

No registered drug affects the deposition of Aβ in the brain of AD patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

LSS treatment may improve episodic memory in AD patients and may be regarded as a clinical option to counteract the cognitive decline typical of the disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Phenotypic personality dimensions, primarily neuroticism and extraversion, moderate the relationship between APOE [Latin Small Letter Open E]-4 genotype and cognitive outcomes among older adults. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

This study provides data on whether tailored nutritional care is beneficial to home-dwelling AD patients and their spouses. 5 key findings →

Participants: 202 Evidence: high

This study will provide clinically relevant data on the likelihood and time to relapse, and predictors of relapse, in patients switched from risperidone to placebo after response to risperidone treatment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Studies have shown that donepezil could reduce the AD assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) score in MCI patients and improve the patient's attention and speed of response; however, it also has many side effects. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective strategy in some treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Systematic review of atorvastatin for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neural regeneration research 2012-06-01

Two randomized controlled trials were included, one was scale A, and the other was scale B. The rates of abnormal liver function, withdrawal from treatment, and withdrawal due to adverse effects were higher in the treatment group (OR = 7.86, 95%CI: 2.50-24.69; OR = 4.70, 95%CI: 2.61-8.44; and OR = 5.47, 95%CI: 3.01-9.94; respectively) compared with the placebo group. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 710 Evidence: high

Short-term nutritional supplements enable an improvement in Alzheimer patients' nutritional status, but it remains to be seen whether they will be sufficient to improve long-term nutritional status. 2 key findings →

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 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