Sixteen men and 24 women diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease participated in the study. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
61/100
This study included 54 articles, comprising 14,446 participants from 10 countries. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 54 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The effects on depression and other outcomes were consistent with those observed for in-person programs, suggesting the viability of well-designed automated intervention. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 274 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Longer follow-up and testing across diverse LEP communities are needed to assess diagnosis, treatment initiation, and caregiver trajectories. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT Participants: 287 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MR-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS), in combination with intravenous microbubble administration, has been applied for focal temporary BBB opening in patients with neurodegenerative disorders and brain tumors. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Those who viewed Caregiver's Friend: Dealing with Dementia 30 days postexposure demonstrated significant improvements in depression, anxiety, level and frequency of stress, caregiver strain, self-efficacy, and intention to seek help, as well as perceptions of positive aspects of caregiving. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The intervention revealed no substantial between-group differences in caregiver burden (β=-3.80, 95% CI -11.25 to 3.65, P=.32), quality of life (β=-1.55, 95% CI -6.59 to 3.49, P=.55), or social support (β=0.85, 95% CI -2.86 to 4.56, P=.65). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Attendance was good (82.8% attended ≥4/6 sessions). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Improving digital technology for caregivers requires studies with larger populations and longitudinal outcomes. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT Participants: 240 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One hundred sixteen participants consented and 93 (46 waitlist control, 47 intervention) were included in the analyses. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 93 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Two hundred eighty dyads were enrolled. Caregivers during the intervention period reported lower levels of RSS of 0.7 points (standard deviation [SD]: 0.8) compared to the caregivers in the control period. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ACT group reported significantly greater improvements in stress (P=.043) and psychological QoL (P=.014) in the posttest compared to the control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 62 caregivers approached, 60 enrolled (96.7%), and 54 completed the study (90% retention). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 172 participants were randomized. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 172 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample consisted predominantly of women (79% in the intervention group, 69% in the control group), with daughters forming the largest caregiver subgroup (66.6% and 52.4%, respectively). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 42 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Tailoring activities to the capabilities of dementia patients and training families in activity use resulted in clinically relevant benefits for patients and caregivers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
55/100
As the leading cause of dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major burden on affected individuals, their families and caregivers, and healthcare systems. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 2176 person living with dementia-caregiver dyads were enrolled; 1271 persons living with dementia (58.4%) and 1650 caregivers (75.8%) were female, and their mean (SD) age were 80.6 (8.5) years and 65.2 (12.3) years, respectively. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,271 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
54/100
AN1792 + QS-21 elicited a positive antibody response to Abeta42 in more than half of this elderly study population. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
S. lavandulaefolia Vahl. (Spanish sage) extracts and constituents have demonstrated anticholinesterase, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, oestrogenic and CNS depressant (sedative) effects all of which are currently relevant to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The caregivers in intervention group showed significant reductions in distress scores for dressing, personal hygiene, communication, and behavioural and psychological care problems at both the 6th and 12th week assessments. 5 key findings →
Participants: 125 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Phases 1 and 2 results facilitated targeted changes in BESI, thus improving its overall usability for the final phase of the study, when real-time notifications and interventions will be implemented. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
38/100
In phase 1, the mean system usability scores increased from 65.4 (SD 11.8) in round 1 to 73.8 (SD 15.9) in round 3, exceeding the benchmark of 68. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,380 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.
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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →