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.

Find studies

Showing 1–20 of 20 studies in Caregiving · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 20 studies tagged controlled — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Caregiving” covers

Caregiving — Research on the people doing the caring: their health, their workload, and what support actually helps.

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.

RO emphasised the engagement of nursing assistants in a hopeful, therapeutic process but became associated with a rigid, confrontational approach to people with dementia, leading to its use becoming less and less common. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 718 Evidence: high

Circadian rhythm disturbances have been associated with these symptoms. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

There were 987 participants (290 from Vantaa 85+, 241 from the Cambridge City Over-75s Cohort, and 456 from the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study) with neuropathologic data; mean (SD) age at death was 90 (6.4) years, including 682 women (69%). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 987 Evidence: moderate

As one of few meta-analyses comparing different quantities of physical activity and exercise interventions for AD in details, our study suggests that physical activity and exercise can improve cognition of older adults with AD. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 673 Evidence: high

Purpose of the study During aging, musical activities can help maintain physical and mental health and cognitive abilities, but their rehabilitative use has not been systematically explored in persons with dementia (PWDs). 1 key finding →

Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Societal investment in building and maintaining cognitive reserve through formal education in childhood and continued cognitive stimulation during work and leisure in adulthood might help limit the burden of dementia among the growing number of older adults worldwide. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 7,406 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive decline and dementia incidence have also been consistently associated with exposure to air pollution. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

In response to KKM treatment, 68 genes were found to be differentially expressed (19 up-regulated, 49 down-regulated) after adjusting for potentially confounded differences in sex, illness burden, and BMI. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

The use of AC medication was associated with increased brain atrophy and dysfunction and clinical decline. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Memory problems are a defining feature of the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Higher cardiovascular risk burden may predict decline in episodic memory, working memory, and perceptual speed and is associated with neurodegeneration and vascular lesions in the brain. 4 key findings →

Participants: 378 Evidence: low

Neuropathologic comorbidity and cognitive impairment in the Nun and Honolulu-Asia Aging Studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2016-02-17

Total burden of comorbid neuropathologic abnormalities, rather than any single lesion type, was the most relevant determinant of cognitive impairment in both cohorts, often despite clinical diagnosis of only AD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Impaired everyday function is a diagnostic criterion for dementia, and a determinant of healthcare utilization and caregiver burden. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

There were no overall differences between patients with breast cancer and controls before systemic treatment, but there may be pretreatment cognitive impairment within subgroups of patient cases with greater tumor or comorbidity burden. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Impaired ability to conduct daily activities is a diagnostic criterion for dementia and a determinant of healthcare services utilization and caregiver burden. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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. Show only studies that are free to read

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