Adverse childhood events are related to continued vulnerability among older adults, enhancing the impact of chronic stressors. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Overall, 233,567 long-term home care recipients with known carer status were studied. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
About 12% of caregivers (2.8 million) were socially isolated and 27% (6.3 million) were lonely. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,174 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 1,073 caregivers, 33% reported high baseline strain. 5 key findings →
Participants: 100,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
About 65% of caregivers used at least one support service, with 52% utilizing home-based services and 52% community-based services. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
38/100
Conversely, longer travel times to service providers were linked to use of fewer community-based services (B = -0.21, p < .001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
American Indian governments located in a region west of the Cascade mountain range and the government of the state of Washington offer programs to serve the needs of a growing American Indian elder and disabled population through the services of individuals caring for family members and also individuals employed to provide care. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,601 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study sample was NHATS respondents who needed assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and who did not live with a spouse (N = 512). 3 key findings →
Participants: 512 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Day care has a place in the menu of service for people with dementia living in the community. 1 key finding →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
33/100
The consequences of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) are well documented, but beyond the individual, family, and health system costs are implications for communities that are not well-studied. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
32/100
These findings suggest that caregivers living in rural regions may depend more on informal support for meeting basic care needs of their relative living with dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 163 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We are building our alliance of empowered young ambassadors, and expect more than 200 youth at Lorenzo’s Youth Summit 2024. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (Alzheimer's), an ultimately fatal form of dementia, is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for 3.6% of all deaths in 2014 (1,2). 3 key findings →
Participants: 93,541 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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.
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 Where this research is being discussed: events