42/100
We find that sexual minority status and gender interact to shape gay men's caregiving approaches. 5 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A total of 414 caregivers participated. They exhibited normal intensity of depression, anxiety, and stress symptomatology. 5 key findings →
Participants: 414 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Most people with dementia (PwD) live with the support of their caregiver. 2 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Out of 163 caregivers invited to participate, 104 (64%) participated. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study constitutes both a scoping review and a concept analysis, as it systematically examines digital literacy across settings (home, assisted living facilities, and other long-term care facilities) in the context of persons with dementia and their caregivers. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 258 usernames posted on the forum since its inception. 5 key findings →
Participants: 893 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
42/100
Using LGBTQ+ Social Networks, Aging, and Policy Study Wave 3 data (N = 982), this study examines how caregiving for individuals with mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias (MCI/ADRD) impacts everyday stressors, discrimination, and health outcomes among LGBTQ+ older adults in the Southern United States. 1 key finding →
Participants: 982 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
52.7% of dementia caregivers in the United States experience financial toxicity. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 138 (27%) eligible patients (46% female, age 61 ± 8 years, Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 22 ± 6), 75 (54%) underwent genetic testing. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The analysis revealed five distinct themes: (1) impact of the program, (2) facilitators enhancing participation, (3) barriers hindering participation, (4) suggestions for improving participation and (5) challenges to adopt digital platforms. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Up to 60% of people living with dementia who reside in care homes will ‘wander’ at some point. 1 key finding →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants actively contemplated ACP following their parents' death, referring to their end-of-life caregiving experiences as guideposts for issues to anticipate and opportunities to enhance receipt of healthcare during serious illness or incapacitation. 5 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings highlight the importance of tailoring interventions to caregiver characteristics and outcome type. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
41/100
The authors summarize the dementia caregiving literature and provide recommendations regarding practice guidelines for health professionals working with caregivers. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This paper reviews empirical findings concerning the decision-making process of persons with dementia and their family carers, with a particular focus on the extent and determinants of involvement of persons with dementia in the decision-making process. 1 key finding →
Participants: 36 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Virtually all respondents reported increased skill, knowledge, and confidence, and all would recommend the program to others. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We compared black (n = 33) and white (n = 119) caregivers of dementia patients on indices of adaptation, adjustment, and utilization of supportive services. 3 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study investigated the prevalence of depressive symptoms among White Hispanic (WH) and White non-Hispanic (WNH) first-degree family caregivers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
41/100
Allostasis designates processes of bodily adaptation to stressful challenges, whereas allostatic load means the costs of wear and tear to the body as a consequence of inefficient allostasis. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
The model showed excellent fit. Caregiver burden had a significant direct effect on anxiety (59.1% of the total effect), while indirect effects accounted for 40.9%. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four themes emerged: layered caregiving burden, cultural strain and emotional dissonance, dual emotional experiences of caregiving, and coping strategies and unmet needs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The average age for patient was 78.13 ± 10.25 and for caregivers was 54.64 ± 13.22 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 108 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia (AD/ADRD) face significant emotional and logistical challenges that place them at heightened risk for stress, anxiety, and depression. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From across this tag
10 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 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
- Self- versus caregiver-reported apathy across neurological disorders
- An especially hidden population: sexual and gender minority dementia caregivers
- Who knows, who cares? Dementia knowledge among nurses, care workers, and family members of people living with dementia
- Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interviews were valid in advanced conditions
- Digital Mental Health Tools for Caregivers of Older Adults-A Scoping Review
- Emotional Recognition: A Comparative Study of People with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease Self-Report with Caregiver Perspectives
- Living well with dementia: a qualitative interview study on family caregivers’ call for more person- and family-centered dementia support
- Dementia caregiving across Latin America and the Caribbean and brain health diplomacy
- Validation of the Danish version of the Carer Experience Scale in family caregivers of people with dementia
- A multinational review of recent trends and reports in dementia caregiver burden
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 →