31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
3 network types were identified: "Siloed"-small networks, limited task sharing (29.8% of networks); "Small but Mighty"-small networks, high task sharing (23.0% of networks); and "Complex"-large networks, diverse membership, members who share and specialize in task assistance (47.2%). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant association between increased caregiver burden and BPSD in patients with AD was demonstrated, which may be associated with decreased caregiver healthcare and social care-related QOL. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We synthesized caregivers' multiple challenges under five themes - (1) lack of information and awareness limit perceived need for services, (2) cultural norms and values influence decision to seek services, (3) complex processes and long waiting times hinder ability to reach services, (4) financial constraints and high costs force alternate care arrangements, and (5) inability to meet expectations and lack of family support limit engagement with services. 4 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the increased use of technological supports in residential care homes, there is growing interest in the use of real-time location systems (RTLS) to enhance safety and streamline care. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Formal caregivers exhibited significantly better psychological well-being and self-rated health compared to informal caregivers. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
People with dementia have complex medical, functional, and social needs and experience highly variable care quality and outcomes across the U.S. health care system. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 114 older adults (mean age 73 ± 10 years, 51% female) and their primary caregivers (mean age 49 ± 16 years, 70% female) participated, of whom 73 were recruited from health facilities and 41 from rural communities. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eighteen of 24 participants completed the survey and 15 participated in interviews. 5 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
(n = 14) included NH administrators and other leaders, palliative care providers, telehealth representatives, dementia advocates, a care partner, and a PLWD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study cohort for the analysis of inpatient palliative care comprised 43,896 patients, while the cohort for the analysis of outpatient palliative care included a total of 37,430 patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 37,430 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants with Lewy body dementia described losses associated with communication, continence, and energy leading to a progressive loss of independence. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We interviewed 30 participants (9 PWD, 21 carepartners). 4 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
More than 50% of older adults with AD/ADRD visit the emergency department (ED) each year [3, 4] and those who do are seriously ill, have significant healthcare costs (e.g., hospital admissions, repeat ED visits) and mortality [4-6]. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Various approaches to advance care planning are in use and generally acceptable also for persons with dementia and their care partners. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Limited data suggest nursing home (NH) Alzheimer's special care units (ASCUs) may improve care and outcomes among residents with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13,207 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four themes were found: sense of self, connection to others, acceptance versus resistance in the face of adversity, and orientation toward the future versus focus on the present. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregiving difficulties showed excellent reliability (α = 0.928) and yielded three components explaining 73.19% of variance. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,254 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 75.9% of the caregivers reported experiencing at least a mild burden, and the levels of depression, anxiety, and stress among the caregivers were higher than expected. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The rising prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease–related dementias has led to renewed public discourse and policy changes in response to the care needs of persons living with dementia and their care partners. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We previously demonstrated that PST/DSJ improved caregiver burden and depressive symptoms among caregivers of adults with Alzheimer’s Disease and related dementias (ADRD), regardless of the number of sessions or boosters received. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four main themes and 10 subthemes were identified. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four themes were derived from the data analysis as key areas of caregiving needs for Latinos: need to connect socially with others; need for resources to provide care; need to understand dementia and navigating existing resources and future care planning; and need for empathic, culturally congruent healthcare. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Family caregivers (n = 705) had a mean ± standard deviation (SD) age of 54.6 ± 11.5 years, 56.9% were male, and 84.0% cared for a parent or in-law with AD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 705 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proposed model demonstrated a sound fit (PCMIN/DF = 2.612). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings revealed a significant negative correlation between fatigue and hope (r = -.431, p <.01), a significant positive correlation between fatigue and anxiety (r =.584, p <.01), and a significant negative correlation between hope and anxiety (r = -.364, p <.01). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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.
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.
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 31,380 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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