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 55 studies in Treatments published 2020 (page 1 of 3) · 28,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 55 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.

Of 544 eligible participants (241 women and 303 men), the mean (SD) age was 74.3 (8.2) years, and the mean (SD) sMMSE score was 26.4 (1.9). 1 key finding →

Participants: 554 Evidence: high

Among 2218 AMARANTH patients, the mean (SD) age was 71.3 (7.1) years, and 1177 of 2218 (53.1%) were women. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 6,871 Evidence: high

No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 432 Evidence: high

One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 4005) examined the direct effect of screening for cognitive impairment on patient outcomes, including potential harms, finding no significant differences in health-related quality of life at 12 months (effect size, 0.009 [95% CI, -0.063 to 0.080]). 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,005 Evidence: high

Outpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. 5 key findings →

Participants: 584 Evidence: high

Compared with participants who learned that they had a not elevated amyloid result, individuals who learned of an elevated amyloid result were no more likely to experience short-term increases in depression (mean [SD] change in the Geriatric Depression Scale score, 0.02 [1.3] vs 0.04 [1.3]; P = .90), anxiety (mean [SD] change in State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score, -0.02 [3.2] vs -0.15 [3.0]; P = .65), or suicidality (mean [SD] change in the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale score, 0.0 [0.4] vs -0.01 [0.5]; P = .67). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,167 Evidence: high

Despite undetectable TPI-287 levels in CSF, CSF biomarkers demonstrated decreased chitinase-3-like protein-1 (YKL-40) levels in the 4RT treatment arm (mean [SD], -8.4 [26.0] ng/mL) compared with placebo (mean [SD], 10.4 [42.3] ng/mL; median difference, -14.6 [95% CI, -30.0 to 0.2] ng/mL; P = .048, Mann-Whitney test). 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 39 Evidence: high

Of 157 participants initially assessed, 137 were enrolled in the Age-Well clinical trial, and 127 were analyzed in this study. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 157 Evidence: high

Bupropion for the Treatment of Apathy in Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA network open 2020-05-01

After controlling for the baseline AES-C score, site, and comedication with donepezil or galantamine, the mean change in the AES-C score between the bupropion and placebo groups was not statistically significant (mean change, 2.22; 95% CI, -0.47 to 4.91; P = .11). 4 key findings →

Participants: 108 Evidence: high

Although antipsychotics were associated with greater harm than antidepressants and anticonvulsants in subgroups of persons with dementia, medications used in lieu of antipsychotics for treating neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia, such as anticonvulsants and dextromethorphan-quinidine, were also associated with harm. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 209 Evidence: high

Baseline assessments were conducted on 128 participants. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 125 Evidence: high

Further investigations are needed, especially trials providing stronger interventions (such as exercise training and a controlled diet) and also embracing the sensorial domain of IC. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,445 Evidence: high

In this randomized clinical trial, rotigotine treatment did not significantly affect global cognition in patients with mild to moderate AD; however, improvement was observed in cognitive functions highly associated with the frontal lobe and in activities of daily living. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 47 Evidence: high

Online education involving a celebrity may be an effective strategy for educating college students about AD risk reduction strategies. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 721 Evidence: high

This is the first study to show that WM integrity is associated with frailty in older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 227 Evidence: high

The Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Crenezumab doses of ≤120 mg/kg intravenously q4w were well tolerated. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 21 Evidence: high

These findings have implications for clinical practice and suggest that presence of a caregiver may be an important modifying variable on patient outcomes to examine in future research. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high

Danggui-Shaoyao-San for dementia: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Medicine 2020-01-01

These estimates suggest that DSS provides clinically important reductions in symptoms of AD and VD and can be a promising anti-dementia drug candidate. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 567 Evidence: high

MI failed to show an effect on metabolism in FDG-based AD biomarker, but exploratory analysis suggested positive effect on limbic system metabolism. 4 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: high

Benefit-finding is an efficacious intervention for depressive symptoms in Alzheimer caregivers, with strong effects in the medium-term post-intervention and possible moderate effects in the longer-term post-intervention. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer disease (AD), also known as prodromal AD, there is evidence for a pathologic shortage of uridine, choline, and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]), which are key nutrients needed by the brain. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.

1,038 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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