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 123 studies in Treatments published 2026 (page 1 of 5) · 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.

Gantenerumab for Early Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 89 out of 100. Brain and behavior 2026-08

Six trials (3103 Gantenerumab significantly reduces amyloid and statistically improves select functional (FAQ) and cognitive (ADAS-Cog13) measures in early AD; however, these changes remain below accepted MCID thresholds, indicating a lack of true clinical meaningfulness. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,103 Evidence: high

1795 participants with early AD were enrolled in Clarity AD, of which 1521 were ApoE ε4 heterozygotes or non-carriers (85 %). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high

Synthesis methods We meta-analysed results for each outcome within each comparison using the inverse variance method and the random-effects model. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 20,342 Evidence: high

Low-Dose Lithium for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2026-04-01

Among 80 participants (mean [SD] age, lithium: 72.93 [8.77] years; placebo: 71.22 [6.47] years; 56% female), none of the 6 coprimary outcomes met the prespecified significance threshold. 2 key findings →

Participants: 170 Evidence: high

This expert workgroup review summarizes what is known about ARIA, the brain-swelling (ARIA-E) and micro-bleeding (ARIA-H) side effect seen with anti-amyloid drugs. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: high

In this multicenter randomized clinical trial among older adults with family history of dementia and/or self-reported subjective cognitive decline, exercise, IRVR, or both did not result in statistically significant differences in improvements in cognitive function over 24 months. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,290 Evidence: high

A recent randomized trial demonstrated clear cerebrospinal-fluid DHA target engagement without detectable improvement in cognition or brain volume over 24 months. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

ARIA-E incidence was 2.0% in non-carriers and 6.2% in εε4/εε4 homozygotes (εε4/εε4-versus-non-carrier OR 3.25, versus 8.49 in Clarity AD and 8.32 in Japan post-marketing surveillance). 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

A brief DMA combined with plasma pTau217 identifies a subset of cognitively unimpaired, amyloid-positive older adults at highest risk for cognitive and biomarker progression. 2 key findings →

Participants: 818 Evidence: high

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) occurred in 11.2% (10/89) with lecanemab and 13.3% (11/83) with donanemab-less than in pivotal trials. 5 key findings →

Participants: 89 Evidence: moderate

In this real-life crossover study, THC/CBD oil did not show superiority over placebo in reducing agitation in severe dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 25 Evidence: null result

Guidelines recommend limiting antipsychotic treatment to short-term use ( Methods Using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, linked with hospital and mortality data from Jan 1, 1998, to March 31, 2021, we emulated two sets of target trials, one after 12 weeks of antipsychotic treatment and another after 24 weeks of antipsychotic treatment, to compare continuing treatment versus tapering treatment and continuing treatment versus abrupt discontinuation of treatment. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 24,822 Evidence: moderate

Significant interactions between amyloid status and modifiable risk factors were observed for diabetes (adjusted β = -0.206, p = 0.032), high cholesterol (adjusted β = -0.155, p < 0.001), and physical inactivity (adjusted β = -0.161, p = 0.046), indicating combined effects rather than additive effects on cognitive decline among Aβ+ individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,707 Evidence: moderate

Among nursing home residents with dementia, discontinuing long-term antipsychotic medication use was associated with lower risks of hospitalization, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections, suggesting clinical benefits in this population. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 4,222 Evidence: moderate

Bacopa consumption is known to enhance cognitive performance in healthy individuals and is associated with alterations in pathways related to branched-chain and aromatic amino acid biosynthesis. 3 key findings →

Participants: 76 Evidence: high

A plasma protein signature for cerebral amyloid angiopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Acta Neuropathologica 2026-05-20

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a cerebrovascular disorder characterized by the deposition of amyloid-β (Aβ) in the walls of leptomeningeal and cortical blood vessels that increases risk of intracerebral hemorrhages and progressive cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Participants: 251 Evidence: moderate

Lecanemab reduced clinical decline by roughly 27% over placebo, with ARIA-E in 12.6% of treated patients;donanemab slowed decline by about 35%, with ARIA-E near 24%. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

Four thousand four hundred eighty-six participants were included (mean age 71.3 ± 4.7 years, 30% participants Aβ+, 59% female). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder marked by cognitive decline and functional impairment, primarily driven by the accumulation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and tau tangles. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The introduction of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies marks a major shift in Alzheimer's disease (AD) care, moving treatment toward biological modification and reshaping diagnostic and organizational models. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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