alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 35 studies in The Gerontologist · free to read (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Differences in Dementia Caregivers' Well-Being

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2021-07-01

Random-effects models revealed small but statistically significant effects with better psychological well-being in African American caregivers compared with white caregivers in both population-based (d = -0.22) and convenience sample studies (d = -0.21). 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 159 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in dementia caregiving: review and analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The Gerontologist 1997-06-01

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

Race Differences in Characteristics and Experiences of Black and White Caregivers of Older Americans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2020-09-01

Relative to white caregivers, blacks more often provided in excess of 40 hr of care per week (54.3% vs 38.6%) and more often cared for an older adult with dementia (27.1% vs 20.7%) who was living below the federal poverty line (31.7% vs 11.9%) or was Medicaid-eligible (42.2% vs 11.8%). 1 key finding →

Participants: 992 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Spouses' Effectiveness as End-of-Life Health Care Surrogates: Accuracy, Uncertainty, and Errors of Overtreatment or Undertreatment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2008-12-01

Surrogates were accurate in the majority of cases, made errors in 12% to 22% of cases, and were uncertain in 11% to 16% of cases. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Caring for People With Dementia: Mapping the Experience and Journey From Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-02-13

Data indicated that participants' needs fluctuated, with 3 key time points of heightened need: dementia diagnosis, in-home care, and transition into residential care. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Influence of Birthplace and Age at Migration on Cognitive Aging Among Hispanic/Latino Populations in the United States: Study of Latinos-Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-01-23

All Hispanic/Latino immigrant adults, regardless of age at migration, have a cognitive health disadvantage (at each visit and over time) relative to U.S./mainland-born Hispanic/Latino individuals. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16,415 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Updating the Evidence for Physical Activity: Summative Reviews of the Epidemiological Evidence, Prevalence, and Interventions to Promote "Active Aging"

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2016-04-01

Purpose of the study There is a global imperative to increase awareness of the emerging evidence on physical activity (PA) among older adults. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Caregivers’ Perspectives on Discussions of Medical Treatment Preferences for People Living With Dementia Are Associated With Their Dementia Health Literacy and the Caregiving Relationship

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-01-29

On average, surveyed caregivers (n = 431) were 78.3 years, had 16 years of education, and were mainly White (88.5%). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 431 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

“It may cost you your money, it costs you your life”: a framework for financial hardship in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-07-25

Among 52 participants recruited, 27 were former caregivers, 16 were current caregivers, and nine were persons with dementia; experiences reflected Alzheimer's (n = 18), sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob (n = 12), Lewy body (n = 7), and other dementias (n = 15). 5 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Dementia caregiver intervention research: in search of clinical significance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2002-10-01

Although many studies have reported small to moderate statistically significant effects on a broad range of outcomes, only a small proportion of these studies achieved clinically meaningful outcomes. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Relationship Between Perceived and Objective Financial Abilities Among Older Adults: Results From the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-04-07

In years when older adults subjectively reported fewer difficulties with their finances, they objectively performed better at financial tasks and this relationship became stronger over 10 years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,802 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Caregiving Burden Among Caregivers of People With Dementia Through the Lens of Intersectionality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2022-05-01

Surprisingly, compared to White female caregivers, all the other groups were 37% (95% CI 0.41-0.95) to 71% (95% CI 0.15-0.56) less likely to have emotional burden. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ Change the filters

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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