27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This randomized trial of 406 spouse caregivers of people with Alzheimer's tested whether counseling and support (six counseling sessions, mandatory support groups, and on-call phone counseling) could delay nursing home placement. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 406 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Greater access to effective programs of counseling and support could yield considerable benefits for caregivers, patients with Alzheimer disease, and society. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Random-effects models revealed small but statistically significant effects with better psychological well-being in African American caregivers compared with white caregivers in both population-based (d = -0.22) and convenience sample studies (d = -0.21). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
End-of-life care for patients with dementia was extremely demanding of family caregivers. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Counseling and support lead to sustained benefits in reducing depressive symptoms in spouse-caregivers of Alzheimer's disease patients and should be widely available to provide effective, evidence-based intervention for family caregivers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Counseling and support preserved SRH in vulnerable caregivers. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Using a stress process model, risk factors (caregiving stressors, caregiver health, and negative social interactions) and protective factors (caregiving appraisals and social resources) were examined as predictors of family caregiver well-being (depression and life satisfaction). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
While providing home care for a family member with senile dementia is clearly extremely stressful, there has been little controlled research assessing the specific effects of this stress on caregiver psychological, social, and health functioning. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Hospice family caregivers are at high risk for both psychological and physical health disorders, and caregiver depression and health problems should be systematically assessed and treated by the hospice team. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results indicated that patient diagnosis (cancer or dementia) and caregiver appraisals (stressfulness of functional impairment and positive aspects of caregiving) were not predictors on any of our well-being outcomes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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.
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 →