27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The cohort sample included 5058 beneficiaries with dementia (mean [SD] age, 85.5 [8.0] years; 3038 women [60.1%]; 809 [16.0%] non-Hispanic Black, 357 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 3892 non-Hispanic White respondents [76.9%]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,058 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Professional caregivers may initiate ACP early if strategies carefully consider timing and family and patient receptiveness or reluctance, and are family and patient-centered. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Rural subjects with higher health literacy were more likely to want comfort care compared to those with lower levels of health literacy. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 43 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Twelve studies were identified. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Emotion-focused, patient-centered interventions like PIPAC hold promise for advancing treatment options in the early and mild stages of dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Three themes emerged from 29 included studies: self-care needs and behaviors of ICGs, barriers to performing self-care, and enablers of self-care. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A technology-based format was feasible for delivering a multi-component intervention to minority family dementia caregivers. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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
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
Technology-based interventions have the potential to support informal caregivers of PWD. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study presents findings from IDEA Café, for older adults aged 50 and older living with early dementia, dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease or cognitive impairment (ED/CI) with no informal caregiver or care partner. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals with dementia and their care partners often report dissatisfaction with the disclosure process due to insufficient information and support. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Care for U.S. nursing home residents with LRI and dementia is more aggressive than care for Dutch residents, particularly in residents with severe dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Despite the growing body of evidence over the 20 years of this review, and the widespread interest in family dementia caregiving generally, much of the research exploring family caregiving in rural areas focuses on the experience, use and barriers to formal service provision. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among 259 945 decedents with dementia (mean [SD] age, 85.8 [8.0] years; 60.4% female), 8.3% were non-Hispanic Black, 4.4% were Hispanic, and 87.3% were non-Hispanic White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Use of the transactional model of stress responses yielded important insights about families coping with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This suggests that for many antipsychotic drug users benefits may be marginal and that programs to reduce such drug use among the 250,000 US nursing home residents receiving these drugs should have high priority. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Caregivers most frequently cite deteriorating patient conditions as the main causes of ending home care. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Despite comprising the largest segment of the sexual minority population and experiencing unique stressors and health disparities, bi+ dementia caregivers remain underrepresented in health and caregiving research. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 125 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Previous studies have suggested that 4 latent constructs (depressed affect, well-being, interpersonal problems, somatic symptoms) underlie the item responses on the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,183 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Despite providing high-intensity care, often for years, many bereaved caregivers perceived themselves as unprepared for the death. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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.
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.
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 →