Thirty-six resident videos were shared with family (N = 50) and staff (N = 38) during care plan meetings. 5 key findings →
Participants: 50 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
This review shows that communication skills training in dementia care significantly improves the quality of life and wellbeing of people with dementia and increases positive interactions in various care settings. 3 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The inclusion criteria for peer-reviewed English publications from March 2020 to August 2022 consisted of studies related to telehealth services for people living with dementia and their family caregivers and studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
Out of 50,089 LTC residents, 12.1% retained their family physicians post-LTC admission. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of this longitudinal cohort study was to explore the outcomes of persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers during their first 9 months at the Integrated Memory Care Clinic (IMCC). 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At year 1, persons with ADRD improved on all scales, except MMSE and functional status measures; caregivers improved on all scales. 5 key findings →
Participants: 554 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Surrogates were accurate in the majority of cases, made errors in 12% to 22% of cases, and were uncertain in 11% to 16% of cases. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Latino family caregivers of people with dementia face significant challenges and limited access to support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four themes were found: sense of self, connection to others, acceptance versus resistance in the face of adversity, and orientation toward the future versus focus on the present. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although much of the research on service use by older adults with dementia relies on proxy reports by informal caregivers, little research assesses the accuracy of these reports, and that which does exist, does not focus on home care services. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ninety-four percent of hospices and 72% of PC programs had served at least one patient with a primary diagnosis of dementia within the past year. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Stakeholder feedback led to substantive refinements, including delivery across six structured sessions, prioritisation of emotional safety and identity preservation, and explicit focus on carer‐mediated behaviour change. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An assessment of the value of lecanemab for patients living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their care partners provides them and their health-care providers important information for deciding treatment initiation. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
A qualitative study was conducted to examine the experiences of informal caregivers of persons with dementia pertaining interprofessional collaboration with and among healthcare professionals in home care (HC), nursing homes and during home to nursing home transitions in palliative care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia-friendly designs are important in residential care homes but an aspect that remains neglected is the potential role of door designs in promoting wayfinding. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The ANCOVA demonstrated no significant overall differences in BPSD severity related to SES measures. 5 key findings →
Participants: 144 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Using qualitative interviews, this research explores the experiences of residential nursing home caregivers in Fukushima, who provided support to elderly sufferers of Alzheimer's or other related forms of dementia during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To better understand the process and outcomes of family involvement for long-term care residents with varying stages of dementia, we analyzed family and staff data for 467 residents of 24 residential care/assisted living and nursing-home settings. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aim of this study was twofold: to compare the functional levels of elderly awaiting nursing home placement and nursing home residents, and to compare their nurses' physical and psychological workloads. 5 key findings →
Participants: 36 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Caregiving for a parent living with dementia (PLWD) shapes former caregivers’ personal health planning. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were no significant differences in self-efficacy related to obtaining respite and RDPB between SES groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 144 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Repeated measures analyses revealed no significant changes over time. 2 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The number of US adults ages sixty-five and older who are living with dementia is substantial and expected to grow, raising concerns about the demands that will be placed on family members and other unpaid caregivers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An analysis of interaction terms in the Cox regression model found that those individuals who utilized in-home help services earlier in their dementia caregiving careers were more likely to delay institutionalization. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →