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
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Caregivers in the control conditions reported significantly worsening sleep efficiency whereas in comparison, those in the active conditions reported improving sleep efficiency. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Interviews with 50 Dutch physicians and 47 American physicians and 3 nurse practitioners generated three themes of ethical considerations: (1) Respecting the autonomy of the person with dementia, (2) Rationality as the basis for decisions and subsequent actions, and (3) Minimizing burden and suffering. 3 key findings →
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
A total of 200 physicians participated in the study. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 200 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants sought to feel secure by following recommended practices, manage uncertainty, avoid crises, share burdens within families, and avoid poor end-of-life experiences. 5 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The item-bank included 180 symptoms, most of which focus group nurses (n = 17) identified as occurring in advanced dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
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
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
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
Medicare-funded home health care (HH) is a crucial resource helping Persons with Dementia (PwD) meet their care needs while aging in place. 1 key finding →
Participants: 907,553 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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
Dementia significantly impacts cognitive, behavioral, and functional abilities, creating challenges for both individuals and caregivers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Six key themes emerged: (1) challenges in daily care; (2) strain from behavioral and sleep disruptions; (3) difficulties in seeking help; (4) personal sacrifices of caregivers; (5) emotional burdens associated with caregiving, including comorbidity concerns of PwD; (6) limited dementia knowledge and essential caregiving skills. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
People with dementia (PWD) are frequently exposed to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use, in which the risks of medication use outweigh the benefits or the medication is not aligned with treatment goals. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Shifting Expectations narrative indicated that PwD's needs shifted to co-constructed needs with their family as PwD's independence declined. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the rising number of dementia cases, supporting family caregivers to maintain their well-being is crucial. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Website goals were: providing ACP information and facilitating ACP conversations. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundClinician communication at the time of a dementia diagnosis often inadequately addresses patient and caregiver needs. 5 key findings →
Participants: 21 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia’s escalating incidence, coupled with its economic burden, highlights the need for architectural designs and forms that benefit people living with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Identifying strategies to enhance patient engagement and to control healthcare costs promotes a responsive and efficient healthcare system. 4 key findings →
Participants: 401 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Carers' knowledge about dementia was moderate overall, with higher scores among those with greater education and previous dementia exposure. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
41/100
ACP is linked to lower EOL spending and a shift from inpatient to outpatient ADRD care; structured ACP delivery should be considered. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
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.
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 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.
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 31,380 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