Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Supporting informal caregivers of dementia patients in China: action needed

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Frontiers in Psychology 2025-10-10

Beyond these practical challenges, caregivers often endure significant physical exhaustion and sleep deprivation from the unrelenting demands of caregiving, which can lead to chronic fatigue and deteriorating health (Liu et al., 2022; Mao et al., 2024). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Tailored Activity Program (TAP), an intervention for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, has been shown to reduce behavioral symptoms for PLWD and caregiver burden. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Participants found MATCH acceptable (combined AES median score of 28, range 25-34) and useful (SUS median score of 73.5, range 55-100). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Key reflections from advisor meetings guided cultural adaptation: lived experiences on dementia caregiving; patient, caregiver, and clinician interactions in the health care system; and limited knowledge and misconceptions of palliative care. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Four major themes emerged: Unfolding Process of ADRD Discovery , Resilience is Multifaceted in Caregiving , Resilience is an Adaptive Process , and Cultural Heritage Shapes Caregivers' Resilience Experiences . 1 key finding →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Twenty-eight caregivers completed the intervention, which increased caregiver mastery and decreased stress and burden. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: low

Participants across all groups showed significant differences in cognition and functionality. 5 key findings →

Participants: 141 Evidence: low

LPA supported a three-profile solution: (1) lower depressive symptoms with moderate anxiety (33%), (2) severe combined depression and anxiety (18%) and (3) moderately severe depression with severe anxiety (49%). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

We identified three main themes of palliative hope in late-stage dementia: 1) Life is good and there is still time, 2) Agency and identity are not lost, and 3) Death will be good and professional support is available. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

For co-residing care partners, high (p = 0.001), increased (p = 0.001), and decreased (p = 0.001) fall frequency over 2 years was significantly associated with emotional difficulties. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Three changes to the intervention content were determined from the different sources of data. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Repeated measures analyses revealed no significant changes over time. 2 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

American Indian Caregivers Policy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Fourth World Journal 2025-08-13

American Indian governments located in a region west of the Cascade mountain range and the government of the state of Washington offer programs to serve the needs of a growing American Indian elder and disabled population through the services of individuals caring for family members and also individuals employed to provide care. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,601 Evidence: low

The study sample was NHATS respondents who needed assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and who did not live with a spouse (N = 512). 3 key findings →

Participants: 512 Evidence: low

Sixty studies were identified. Mental and physical effects caused by caregivers' sleep deprivation have been observed. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The present study addresses the perspectives of Israeli family caregivers and migrant care workers on behavioral problems of persons with dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The TLC study used an appropriate design and data collection procedures, along with acceptable recruitment capability. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Four themes were identified, along with eleven sub-themes associated with them: cognitive-behavioral shift (transitioning family roles, recognizing disease characteristics, focusing on health management, and responding positively and effectively); personal strength enhancement (enhancing coping capacity, increased psychological resilience and increased responsibility); improved relationships with others (harmonizing in family relations and benefiting from social interactions); and changes in life perceptions (reshaping of values, and reconstructing the meaning of life). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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.

↑ Change the filters

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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed