Optimal timing of ACP discussions should be determined by the readiness of the patient and family carer to face end of life. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The preferences of end-of-life issues differed greatly between dementia patients and their caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although there were no significant changes in caregiver burden, we were encouraged by the increased emotional well-being of our participants following the completion of our program. 4 key findings →
Participants: 21 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The NPI-D provides a reliable and valid measure of subjective caregiver distress in relation to neuropsychiatric symptoms measured by the NPI. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Further investigations are needed to elaborate how the concept of a key contact person could be integrated with existing case management approaches and how the independence and autonomy of people with dementia can be strengthened when formal care needs to be accessed and used. 1 key finding →
Participants: 261 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Algorithms developed from health administrative data are sensitive and specific for identifying older adults with AD-RD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 3,404 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individual's loneliness was stable when their spouse's cognition remained normal, but increased with the spouse's TCIND. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,206 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
50/100
The PWD and ICG interviews provided insight into the positive impacts of VP, challenges of VP, program barriers, program facilitating factors, and suggestions for future improvement for the OSCC55 + VPs. 4 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four major themes emerged: forgetting to eat, developing food aversions, strong preferences for sweets and weight changes. 5 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research on interpersonal interaction dynamics in relationships between persons with dementia and their family caregivers has been limited. 5 key findings →
Participants: 350 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the 12 neuropsychiatric symptoms investigated, 10 were significantly associated with caregiver burden, while 8 showed significant correlations with depressive symptoms. 4 key findings →
Participants: 134 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This cross-sectional study explores caregivers' perceptions of feeding/eating difficulties in persons living with dementia, their support provisions, and the associated burdens. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of the 38 patients recruited, 10 (26.3%) met criteria for anosognosia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
50/100
Sleep was correlated more among dyads living with dementia than those with other chronic conditions. 5 key findings →
Participants: 462 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Breakdown (coded as 0) was associated with caregivers changing topic (median = -11.45, 95% credibility interval [CrI; -24.34, -4.37]), ignoring (median = -11.49, 95% CrI [-24.49, -4.72]), giving commands (median = -10.74, 95% CrI [-24.22, -3.38]), and taking over the task (median = -4.06, 95% CrI [-7.28, -1.77]). 5 key findings →
Participants: 221 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
50/100
Adjusted for functional impairments and sociodemographic variables, neuropsychiatric symptoms were associated with more caregiver burden (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Total cost of care in early stage AD (CDR-SB ≤ 4) was 16,448€ (95% CI 13,722-19,716) annually. 5 key findings →
Participants: 231 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with DLB (n = 50) died 3.24 ± 1.81 years after diagnosis, typically of disease-related complications. 5 key findings →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The costs of dementia fall on families, highlighting limited policy and work supports. 2 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As a result of the PLST training, there was a decrease in the behavioural problems of Alzheimer's patients, along with a decrease in the care burden of the caregivers and an increase in their care satisfaction. 2 key findings →
Participants: 29 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These effects were most pronounced in caregivers of subjects with Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Both quality of life and caregiver burden were similar in the 2 groups without dementia but were significantly different in those with PDD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although several results were consistent with prior findings, caregiving indicators (i.e., burden and self-rated health) and community-based service use were significant predictors of earlier placement. 1 key finding →
Participants: 3,944 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Multiple reasons contribute to the institutionalization for people with dementia, with several factors that may influence why there were country differences. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Screening caregivers for burden and depression and designing interventions to decrease the consequences of behavioral disturbance on caregivers would be relevant avenues to explore to decrease institutionalization of people with dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 326 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
From across this tag
9 of the 893 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 9. The same 9 appear here every time.
- Caregivers' understanding of dementia predicts patients' comfort at death: a prospective observational study
- The impact of early dementia diagnosis and intervention on informal caregivers
- Factors associated with receipt of caregiver training among family and unpaid caregivers of people living with dementia
- A meta-analysis of the association between caregiver burden and the dependent's illness
- Family physicians' role in palliative care throughout the care continuum: stakeholder perspectives
- Effect of multicomponent interventions on caregiver burden and depression: the REACH multisite initiative at 6-month follow-up
- Neuropsychiatric symptoms underlying caregiver stress and insight in Alzheimer's disease
- Dementia Care in Rural Appalachia: Multilevel Analysis of Individual- and County-Level Factors
- Therapeutic preference for Alzheimer's disease treatments: a discrete choice experiment with caregivers and neurologists
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →