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 45 studies in Treatments published 2017 (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.

A phase III randomized trial of gantenerumab in prodromal Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2017-12-08

The study was stopped early for futility, but dose-dependent effects observed in exploratory analyses on select clinical and biomarker endpoints suggest that higher dosing with gantenerumab may be necessary to achieve clinical efficacy. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,089 Evidence: high

ARIA was detected more often on MRI scans when every scan was reviewed by trained neuroradiologists and results adjudicated. 4 key findings →

Participants: 242 Evidence: high

The meta-analyses suggest the credible efficacy and safety of memantine in treating AD when used alone or in combination with ChEIs. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 7,567 Evidence: high

PurposeTelephone disclosure of genetic test results can improve access to services. 4 key findings →

Participants: 257 Evidence: high

[Memantine as add-on medication to acetylcholinesterase inhibitor therapy for Alzheimer dementia]

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Der Nervenarzt 2017-01

Currently available data indicate superior therapeutic effects of combination treatment for Alzheimer dementia with memantine and acetylcholine esterase inhibitors in certain clinical contexts. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

This review has shown that wearable systems are used mostly for the monitoring and provision of feedback on posture and upper extremity movements in stroke rehabilitation. 4 key findings →

Participants: 21 Evidence: high

We found some evidence that n-3 PUFAs might be beneficial for the maintenance of executive functioning in older adults at risk of dementia with low omega-3 index, but this exploratory finding requires further confirmation. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 183 Evidence: high

ABSTRACTBackground:This systematic overview reports findings from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

At 6 mo, the n-3 FA group displayed marked increases in DHA and EPA plasma concentrations (2.6- and 3.5-fold), as well as decreased methylation in 2 out of 4 CpG sites ( P r = -0.25, P = 0.045; and r = -0.26, P = 0.041, respectively), but not to changes in plasma DHA concentration, and were not related to apolipoprotein E-4 allele frequency. 4 key findings →

Participants: 63 Evidence: high

These findings do not provide evidence of improvement in behavioral symptoms, functional status, or QoL of hearing impaired AD patients and their caregivers after 6 months of HA use. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Memory loss is one of the first symptoms of typical Alzheimer's disease (AD), for which there are no effective therapies available. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: high

To review the optimality and safety of different anti-Amyloid- β (Aβ) immunotherapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 5,141 Evidence: high

Data collection began in Ontario and Alberta Canada in June 2015 and is expected to be completed in June 2017. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Little is known about the effectiveness of a psychosocial behaviour management programme on home-dwelling people with dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Verubecestat is a potent BACE1 enzyme inhibitor currently being investigated in Phase III trials for the treatment of mild-to-moderate and prodromal Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Patients on galantamine had longer mean persistence and better adherence compared with patients on donepezil, with a hazard ratio for discontinuation of 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-0.96] and a relative risk for good adherence of 1.01 (95% CI 1.002-1.03). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Our results suggest that risperidone may affect the CSF profile of AD biomarkers indicating more amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 44 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