This is the first study to test community-based family dementia caregiver intervention in Vietnam. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 117 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Phase 3 (NIH stage 1B) is a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the intervention versus the Health Education Program control. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MBSR was more effective at improving overall mental health, reducing stress, and decreasing depression than CCES. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite methodological inconsistency, supporting caregivers appears to be an effective strategy often improving well-being of caregiver or care-recipient and resulting in additional benefits for society. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review 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
Thirty-four reviews were included, published between 2009 and 2023. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Many community-residing PWD and their caregivers have unmet dementia-related needs for care, services, and support. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 254 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study provides a review and analysis of the empirical research published since 1985 that has examined the impact of race, culture, and/or ethnicity on the dementia caregiving experience. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
PIM use may be higher in dementia patients and their informal caregivers compared with the general older adult population. 5 key findings →
Participants: 566 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is a growing interest in using technology to provide meaningful activities for people living with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregivers reported that digital mental health tools have an overall positive role in their health. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
Assistance with daily activities is crucial for persons living with dementia and functional limitations, yet many face substantial challenges in accessing adequate care and support. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
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
57/100
Ninety-one reviews provided evidence on the impact of telemedicine in dementia care. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 143 331 older adults with dementia (83 536 [58.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 83.8 [7.5] years), 1312 (0.9%) received a feeding tube in hospital and 142 019 (99.1%) did not. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this Delphi survey study, international experts reached consensus on a range of criteria for referral to specialist palliative care. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 60 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent evidence suggests that Web-based interventions have the potential to support caregivers by decreasing caregiver stress and burden. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The multi-sectoral collaborative care model proposed in this study integrated resources from several departments, effectively improved the quality of life of patients and their caregivers, and provided a way of care services for patients with Alzheimer Disease. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Study findings will reveal the feasibility of delivering an 8-week multidomain health education intervention for primary prevention of dementia in midlife and will provide preliminary evidence of mechanisms of change. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 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
Dependency upon others to perform ADL was the main factor affecting HRQoL. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 244 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A minority of NH residents with advanced dementia received hospice care. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The most crucial elements for the adoption of ATT in the future will be a focus on co-design, improved involvement of relevant stakeholders, and the adaptability (tailoring related to context) of ATT solutions over time (disease process). 3 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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