31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
At 6 months, compared with usual care, participants receiving the intervention had better QOL (QOL-AD score, 0.09 [95% CI, -0.63 to 0.82] vs -0.88 [95% CI, -1.62 to -0.13]; treatment effect estimate, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.07-1.86; P = .03). 4 key findings →
Participants: 612 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MBI component significantly improved multiple caregiver outcomes, with reduced depressive symptoms (β = -2.13 [95% CI, -2.85 to -1.38]; P Conclusions and relevance In this clinical trial of informal caregivers of people with dementia, synergistic interaction effects were noted for MBI, which enhanced the benefits of SC and BPM on depression. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effects of 131 randomized controlled trials, published between 2006 and mid-2018, for dementia caregivers with community-dwelling care-recipients. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Significant main effects in the expected direction were found for changes in most of these measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A structured multicomponent intervention adapted to individual risk profiles can increase the quality of life of ethnically diverse dementia caregivers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the rising dementia population, more and more programs have been developed to help caregivers deal with the care-recipient as well as their own frustrations. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The VSOP/A group had significantly improved processing speed and attention performance compared to the VE group, and these differences persisted through 6 months postintervention. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study enrolled 184 middle-aged and older women (95 Non-Hispanic White and 89 Hispanic/Latino) who provided in-home hands-on care to an elderly relative with Alzheimer's disease or another form of dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 184 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Understanding variability in conceptions of dementia in multiethnic populations is important to improve care and guide research. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Increased public education about AD is needed in these communities. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregivers had higher levels of 8 am, 5 pm, and 9 pm log cortisol as well as higher perceived stress than noncaregivers. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Four themes were derived from the data analysis as key areas of caregiving needs for Latinos: need to connect socially with others; need for resources to provide care; need to understand dementia and navigating existing resources and future care planning; and need for empathic, culturally congruent healthcare. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Familism has been pointed out as a key value in Hispanic culture that may or may not be associated with caregiver distress. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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
BackgroundAlzheimers Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) is a growing global public health challenge, and caregivers experience high rates of burden, unmet needs, and system failures. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 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