Older people's immigration to a different country can place them in a vulnerable situation. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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.
Emerging themes include (1) receptive to ACP, (2) mixed emotions, (3) barriers to ACP, (4) family consensus in decision-making, and (5) benefits of ACP. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The observation group had significantly lower Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) scores than the control group (both P<0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence suggests that chronic caregiving stress contributes to biological changes such as immune dysregulation, inflammation, acceleration, aging, and potential cognitive decline in caregivers themselves. 1 key finding →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examined how nursing home staff adapt to challenging mealtime behaviors in residents with dementia, such as turning away or refusing food. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite an aging population and acknowledged importance of advance care planning (ACP) for persons living with cognitive impairment, few engage in ACP. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Forty studies were included. Key stakeholders included healthcare professionals (HCPs); family members and caregivers; PWD; dyads (PWD and their caregivers); the broader public; policymakers; and researchers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Seventy-six percent (23/30) of enrolled dyads successfully completed the study. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 142 respondents, 53% supported, 10% were uncertain, and 37% opposed legalizing euthanasia for terminal illness with severe symptoms. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Informal caregivers often seek additional support. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The outbreaks added significant additional stress to the nursing workforce, which has historically experienced high turnover, chronic staffing shortages, and increased burnout in long‐term care settings. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
• AT use was limited and AT type used varied by caregiver living arrangement. • Most used ATs: daily living support and risk prevention; risk response least used. • Daily living support ATs linked to fewer care hours. • Risk prevention ATs tied to longer PT, higher CarerQol-7D, and lower SRB scores. • Daily support and risk response ATs most likely to extend PT by over six months. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-one articles were included. This conceptual analysis revealed the evolution of in-home respite care service content over time and summarized three key attributes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Respite for individuals caring for family living with dementia is a common way to take personal time away from caregiving. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
While both caregivers participated in physical activity, their case studies reveal opportunities to optimize physical activity interventions to support members of the caregiving dyad: (1) targeting mitochondrial fitness—the ability of mitochondria to maintain energy homeostasis with aging—so participants can mitigate the onset of NCDs, fatigue, and overall health outcomes; (2) promoting the self-care and psychological benefits of physical activity such as improved mood and social connectedness; and (3) improving the accurate perceptions of participants’ health and physical activity with specific measurable markers of physical activity. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
34/100
Four attributes distinguished situations in which either approach is preferred: understanding, trust, readiness, and momentum. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The first three elements concerned common awareness of collaborative ACP in dementia care, role clarification for various professions and actively working towards shared goals in collaborative ACP in dementia care. 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of these, a growing number have secured funding, initiated collaborations, contributed to dementia palliative care research, and increased confidence and comfort with conducting clinical trials (p<.05). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Awareness of caregiver distress, burnout, and early grief, as a result of the loss of their loved one’s personhood, has increased. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained attention as a tool to support dementia care through efficient and personalized interventions. 5 key findings →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study explores how older people with dementia and their family caregivers experience the process from diagnosis to follow-up in primary care, what support is needed, what works well and what could be improved. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundWith the growing demand for dementia-friendly care environments, existing smart room designs often lack systematic methods to translate user needs into functional solutions. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Various negative and positive aspects, along with specific needs, were identified. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Voluntary assisted dying (VAD) is an end-of-life care option available to eligible Australians living with a terminal condition, though people living with dementia are typically ineligible to choose VAD as part of their end-of-life care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A balanced understanding of dementia’s impact (acknowledging both continuity and loss, alternatives and socially constructed aspects) better reflects the realities of dementia and creates new possibilities for supportive care practices to improve pain management and quality of life. 5 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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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