Eighty-one percent of eligible participants were not aware of a dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
General burden is shown to be determined by severity of patient's neuropsychiatric symptoms, caregiver's sense of competence, health-related quality of life. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
When zero inflation was taken into account, between-site differences in disability scores were largely attributable to compositional differences in health and sociodemographic characteristics. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 10/66 DRG baseline population-based studies are nearly complete. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The quality and level of evidence supporting each theme varied. 2 key findings →
Participants: 5,539 Evidence: low
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
Random-effects models revealed small but statistically significant effects with better psychological well-being in African American caregivers compared with white caregivers in both population-based (d = -0.22) and convenience sample studies (d = -0.21). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is a dearth of good-quality evidence investigating the cancer-dementia prevalence and its implications for successful cancer treatment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Quality of life of people with advanced dementia living in nursing homes is often suboptimal. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
69/100
Younger family caregivers caring for clinically unstable patients with severe neuropsychiatric symptoms experienced greater burden without informal paid help. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 377 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caregiving strain will be collected from care partner/family member only. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2022, we randomly allocated 204 participants (109 [53%] women and 95 [47%] men) to the intervention group and 98 (60 [61%] women and 38 [39%] men) to the control group. 218 (72%) participants at 6 months and 178 (59%) at 12 months provided cost data. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 302 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The combined interventions produced a significant improvement of 0.14 to 0.41 standard deviation units, on average, for caregiver burden, depression, subjective well-being, perceived caregiver satisfaction, ability/knowledge, and care receiver symptoms. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Recommendations for practice include development of standardized guidelines that address caregiver assessment, education, and resources; identification of "caregiver champions" in practice settings; provision of referrals to established support organizations for caregivers (eg, Cancer Support Community, Cancer Care); and collaboration among caregiving, professional, and cancer-related organizations to advocate policy and practice changes for family caregivers. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This meta-review supports the conclusion that being a caregiver for people with dementia is associated with psychological stress and physical ill-health. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Purpose of the study During aging, musical activities can help maintain physical and mental health and cognitive abilities, but their rehabilitative use has not been systematically explored in persons with dementia (PWDs). 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Eighty-one studies with 3347 participants were included in this review. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,347 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These analyses give a population based estimated median survival for incident dementia of 4.5 years. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 438 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The caregiver burden is frequently used to refer to the physical and psychological problems that may arise from caring for a dependent relative. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adult children receiving the NYUCI-AC completed a mean of 5.19 individual and family counseling sessions; it took on average a little over 11 months to do so. 5 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Thirty-five studies were analyzed with data from 3268 caregivers (pooled mean age [SD of sample means], 63.48 [5.99] years; 76.7% female) were analyzed. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Internet course 'Mastery over Dementia' offers an effective treatment for family caregivers of people with dementia reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety. 4 key findings →
Participants: 149 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,045 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated