67/100
A randomized, controlled trial. 1 key finding →
Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
NPTs emerge as a useful, versatile and potentially cost-effective approach to improve outcomes and QoL in ADRD for both the PWD and CG. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caring for a family member with dementia is generally regarded as a chronically stressful process, with potentially negative physical health consequences. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Pathogenic mutations in APP, PSEN1, PSEN2, MAPT and GRN have previously been linked to familial early onset forms of dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study presents findings from IDEA Café, for older adults aged 50 and older living with early dementia, dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease or cognitive impairment (ED/CI) with no informal caregiver or care partner. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The R47H variant in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 gene (TREM2), a modulator of the immune response of microglia, is a strong genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD) and possibly other neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →
Participants: 751 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
54/100
Of 31 028 older adults in MEPS, 5184 (10%) were African American; 146 (<1%) American Indian or Alaska Native; 1043 (3%) Asian (Indian, Chinese, or Filipino); 5346 (10%) Latino; 690 (2%) Other Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander; and 18 617 (75%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Additional (not mutually exclusive) explanations for findings are discussed. 1 key finding →
Participants: 255 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Seven studies were included from 1,800 screened. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Conventional cost estimates, which do not consider unpaid caregiver burden and patient productivity loss, significantly underestimate the total burden of AD. 3 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite the differences in partner's dementia status, we found no significant difference in the 5-year cumulative Medicare expenditures between SPWD and SPWND. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Current annual replacement cost of unpaid family care is between $96 and $182 billion, 44% of which is accounted for by dementia caregiving. 1 key finding →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
People living with dementia and their care partners benefit from services and supports from a wide variety of healthcare and social service professionals. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
"Rapid-type" caregivers (n = 12) had a median age of 59 (range 45-73) years; 6 were female, and 9 were spouses. 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Estimates suggest that there are more than 10 million adult caregivers of persons with dementia, two-thirds of who experience some form of sleep disturbance during the course of their caregiving career. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
Three overarching concepts were identified: "Pathways to Preparedness'", 'Multi-Level Barriers', and 'Bridging the Gap.' 5 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia disproportionately affects Hispanic/Latino caregivers, and while some interventions exist, their consideration of intersectional factors remains unclear. 1 key finding →
Participants: 41 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. 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 →