A new assessment of Activities of Daily Living has been developed specifically for use with people with dementia. 1 key finding →
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.
40/100
We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
40/100
We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Kolb’s experiential learning theory has a positive impact on alleviating the caregiving burden and reducing anxiety and depression among family caregivers of dementia patients. 1 key finding →
Participants: 55 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The caregiver burden was found at a moderate to severe level with the average score of 58.14(12.84). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examined relationships among caregiver burden, depressive symptoms, and key processes related to psychological flexibility (experiential avoidance, cognitive fusion, values-driven actions, and mindfulness) in 157 family caregivers of individuals with dementia in the United States. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.049, respectively), followed by musculoskeletal pain in the back and lower limbs. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The training significantly improved caregivers' dementia knowledge and self-efficacy but did not reduce caregivers' distress and depression, nor decrease care recipients' emergency room visits and hospitalizations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregiver self-efficacy significantly improved in the IIG compared with the WLG ( P = .042) with a moderate effect size ( d = 0.64). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
IFAD activities led to substantial progress in dementia care services, with memory clinics, residential care facilities and daycare centres mapped, revealing regional disparities in service provision. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
anxiety and depression symptoms (HADS), functional autonomy (DAD-6), global cognition (MoCA), and quality of life (WHOQOL). 5 key findings →
Participants: 165 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Family caregivers had information, psychosocial, and self-care needs that were deeply intertwined and frequently coexisted at the same time. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The resulting framework is organized around 3 themes-vision, process, and impact-each containing guiding questions that encourage dialogical reflection and decision-making. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
N = 48 community-based dyads completed the LEAD intervention, with N = 43 answering open-ended questions. 5 key findings →
Participants: 48 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Palliative care is essential for patients with serious illness, including those with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Broad barriers identified in the outer setting of the implementation framework include sociocultural values and a lack of supportive policies, guidelines, and financing. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After screening, a total of 48 studies were included in this review. 5 key findings →
Participants: 48 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 88 validated scales were identified. 5 key findings →
Participants: 88 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This collaboratively developed, person-centred model can support the design of new education and training tools and be readily translated into existing programmes. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Using a knowledge-translation framework, information and strategies can be provided to family and professional caregivers to help them optimize residual memory and communication in people with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2016, there were 1,005,781 Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service long-term residents. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that moving to an AL influences Medicare enrollment decisions; and, variation in switching exists between the type of AL (general vs memory care) and whether or not an individual has dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 63,395 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that moving to an AL influences Medicare enrollment decisions; and, variation in switching exists between the type of AL (general vs memory care) and whether or not an individual has dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 63,395 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) are progressive neurodegenerative conditions that impair memory, thought processes, and functioning. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified two main themes (each with subthemes) that influence Latino dementia caregiver experiences with healthcare: (1) caregiving and understanding of dementia shaped by individual, family, and social factors (subthemes: Caregiver's own understanding of dementia; Lack of support and understanding from family; Latino cultural perspectives on dementia); and (2) navigating formal services amid gaps in cultural alignment and support (subthemes: Trial and error: education and resource gaps; Cultural tension with healthcare). 4 key findings →
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.
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