Four main themes and 10 subthemes were identified. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Four themes were derived from the data analysis as key areas of caregiving needs for Latinos: need to connect socially with others; need for resources to provide care; need to understand dementia and navigating existing resources and future care planning; and need for empathic, culturally congruent healthcare. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Family caregivers (n = 705) had a mean ± standard deviation (SD) age of 54.6 ± 11.5 years, 56.9% were male, and 84.0% cared for a parent or in-law with AD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 705 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proposed model demonstrated a sound fit (PCMIN/DF = 2.612). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings revealed a significant negative correlation between fatigue and hope (r = -.431, p <.01), a significant positive correlation between fatigue and anxiety (r =.584, p <.01), and a significant negative correlation between hope and anxiety (r = -.364, p <.01). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings identify affiliate stigma as an important risk factor for dementia caregivers’ depressive symptoms, operating through both objective and emotional forms of social disconnection. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frequently reported factors included self-management support, information access, and enhanced communication, although these were not consistently addressed across all reviews. 5 key findings →
Design: umbrella review Participants: 279 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
"Sundowning syndrome" refers to the evening decline in mental state among cognitively impaired patients. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The final models included six predictors: caregivers' social support, caregivers' employment situation, caregivers' average daily care duration, caregivers' monthly family income, caregivers' self-efficacy and PwD's chronic disease. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Globally, ADOD incidence, prevalence, and mortality increased significantly between 1990 and 2021 (156.54%, 160.81%, and 194.39%, respectively). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Globally, 9.84 million cases of ADOD occurred in 2021, with 1.95 million ADOD-related deaths, causing 36.33 million DALYs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
43/100
Despite progress in involving people living with dementia in health research, disparities remain, particularly in the field of health economics and outcomes research, where excessive reliance on proxy reports from care partners or healthcare professionals persists even when people are capable of self-reporting, leading to inequitable inclusion. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Using data from South Korea’s 2018 teleconsultation pilot program involving 1232 patients, the analysis revealed that teleconsultation reduced societal costs per consultation by USD 7.92 for chronic diseases, USD 27.30 for dementia care, and USD 9.61 for rehabilitation. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,232 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 53 stakeholders participated in focus groups and engagement sessions. 5 key findings →
Participants: 53 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean (SD) age of PWD was 81 (8.1) years; 45% were women, 33% Black, and 15% Hispanic. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2021, dementia accounted for 56.9 million global cases, 2.0 million deaths, and 36.3 million DALYs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The global age-standardised DALY rates of ADRDs per 100 000 population slightly increased from 1331.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 881.57, 1781.61) in 1990 to 1347.24 (95% CI = 906.36, 1788.12) in 2021, with an AAPC of 0.04% (95% CI = 0.02, 0.05). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Incorporating RHR into the CAIDE model significantly improved predictive accuracy across Black African, Asian, White, and Native Hawaiian populations (mean AUC range: 0.80-0.91). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2021, the age-standardized prevalence of AD and other dementia in China was 1,194 per 100,000 (95% CI: 1018-1,383), and the mortality rate was 35 per 100,000 (95% CI: 9-93). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study aims to analyze temporal trends in the prevalence and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) burden of early-onset dementia (EOD) globally from 1990 to 2021 and assess the attributable burdens of modifiable risk factors. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
43/100
A total of 88 participants were included in the study. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 88 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The overall rate of dementia was higher in PLHIV than that in POHIV (22% vs 10%; p = 1.4e). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
43/100
Regional differences in the incidence of ADRD suggest possible disparities in healthcare access, socioeconomic conditions and geographical factors. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18,955 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This article synthesizes findings, from the Autism/Dementia Work Group of the 2nd International Summit on Intellectual Disabilities and Dementia, on the nature of autism/autism spectrum disorder and later-age neuropathologies, particularly dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a major neurodegenerative dementia, with its complex pathophysiology challenging current treatments. 1 key finding →
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 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 →