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 54 studies in Treatments published 2018 (page 1 of 3) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 54 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.

Randomized Trial of Verubecestat for Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2018-05-01

Verubecestat did not reduce cognitive or functional decline in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease and was associated with treatment-related adverse events. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,958 Evidence: high

A moderate to high intensity aerobic and strength exercise training programme does not slow cognitive impairment in people with mild to moderate dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: RCT Participants: 494 Evidence: null result

Dose group efficacy required a significant benefit over placebo for the primary end point and 1 or more key secondary end points. 4 key findings →

Participants: 933 Evidence: high

No significant difference was seen in cognitive and functional decline between early and delayed treatment groups. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 85 Evidence: high

ABBY: A phase 2 randomized trial of crenezumab in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2018-04-25

Although prespecified criteria for testing treatment effects were not met, these data suggest a potential treatment effect in patients with mild AD treated with high-dose crenezumab. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 184 Evidence: high

Infusion of bapineuzumab 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg every 13 weeks for up to 3 years was generally well tolerated, with a safety and tolerability profile similar to that in previous studies. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,462 Evidence: low

This multicenter randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility of sham-surgery-controlled stereotactic gene delivery studies in patients with AD. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 49 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease (AD) results in progressively worsening cognitive decline, leading to loss of functional ability, behavior/mood disturbances, institutionalization, and death. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The efficacy and safety of memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Expert opinion on drug safety 2018-09-26

Currently, five pharmacotherapeutic options are available to treat Alzheimer's disease: memantine; the three cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine; and combination treatments with memantine and one cholinesterase inhibitor. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

We investigated the effect of crenezumab, a humanized anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) immunoglobulin (Ig)G4 monoclonal antibody, on biomarkers of amyloid pathology, neurodegeneration, and disease progression in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: high

Alzheimer is a disease leading to various neuropsychiatric behavioral disorders, and the most common symptom observed during the prognosis of Alzheimer's disease is dysmnesia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 60 Evidence: high

One hundred two (37.9%) participants were amyloid positive. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 269 Evidence: high

Current approaches to the early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) rely upon classifying individuals as "positive" or "negative" for biomarkers related to the core pathology of β-amyloid (Aβ). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 71 Evidence: moderate

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) and memantine are commonly used in the management of dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

This is the first study to test community-based family dementia caregiver intervention in Vietnam. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

We developed a robust algorithm to automatically evaluate retinal fundus image that can identify subjects with high WMH burden. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 180 Evidence: low

Recent evidence suggests that Web-based interventions have the potential to support caregivers by decreasing caregiver stress and burden. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Defining the primary cognitive endpoint is a major decision for Alzheimer's disease preventive trials. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Additional study of mechanisms of action and methods for titrating stimulation parameters will be needed to determine if DBS has potential as an AD treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 42 Evidence: high

Use of potentially inappropriate medications in Australian nursing home residents with advanced dementia is common. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 65 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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