27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
There is emerging evidence that physical exercise significantly benefits individuals living with a dementia in nursing homes. 2 key findings →
Participants: 901 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Psychosocial intervention makes a vital contribution to dementia care. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The evidence is not conclusive as to whether some symptoms are more important than others. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although multi-component social support interventions may improve caregiver well-being, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether a change in social support is the underlying mediating factor. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Fifty-three studies were included in the narrative synthesis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Those who viewed Caregiver's Friend: Dealing with Dementia 30 days postexposure demonstrated significant improvements in depression, anxiety, level and frequency of stress, caregiver strain, self-efficacy, and intention to seek help, as well as perceptions of positive aspects of caregiving. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The intervention revealed no substantial between-group differences in caregiver burden (β=-3.80, 95% CI -11.25 to 3.65, P=.32), quality of life (β=-1.55, 95% CI -6.59 to 3.49, P=.55), or social support (β=0.85, 95% CI -2.86 to 4.56, P=.65). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Attendance was good (82.8% attended ≥4/6 sessions). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The inclusion criteria for peer-reviewed English publications from March 2020 to August 2022 consisted of studies related to telehealth services for people living with dementia and their family caregivers and studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When prospectively validated at the bedside and used as a continuous measure, the ability of the ADEPT score to identify nursing home residents with advanced dementia at high risk of death within 6 months was modest, albeit better than hospice eligibility guidelines. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although the majority of studies agreed that the Functional Assessment Staging 7c criterion was not a reliable predictor of 6-month mortality, we found a lack of prognosticator concordance across the literature. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The goal of the present study was to assess the validity of the Medicare hospice eligibility guidelines for dementia patients, as well as identify predictors that could more accurately identify prognosis in dementia patients referred to hospice. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 245 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We included 134 consecutive bedridden end-stage dementia patients admitted during a 36-month period, and surviving in the ward for <6 months. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 134 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review highlights characteristics that could help identify patients at risk of ED attendance near the end of life and potential service-related factors to reduce risks. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Improving digital technology for caregivers requires studies with larger populations and longitudinal outcomes. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT Participants: 240 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One hundred sixteen participants consented and 93 (46 waitlist control, 47 intervention) were included in the analyses. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 93 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Peer support interventions suggest beneficial short-term effects on specific caregiver outcomes but lack long-term sustainability. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,680 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Controlling for pretest, the benefit-finding group had lower depression than the psychoeducation group at post-test, despite the fact that some caregivers found benefit-finding challenging. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
When compared to usual care, the practice guideline for optimal symptom relief did not relieve discomfort and symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cholinesterase inhibitors benefit patients with AD (Standard), although the average benefit appears small; vitamin E likely delays the time to clinical worsening (Guideline); selegiline, other antioxidants, anti-inflammatories, and estrogen require further study. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Coping style may be more associated with anxiety than depression while other covariates (burden and poor physical health) are similar to those for caregiver depression. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of this review support, but do not conclusively establish, the association between BPSD and PSC. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As the physiological impact of chronic stress is difficult to study in humans, naturalistic stressors are invaluable sources of information in this area. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite evidence of ethnic differences in family caregivers' experiences, the extent to which caregiver interventions are culturally tailored to address these differences is unknown. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Support groups benefit caregivers and findings of this meta-analysis serve as immediate guidance for group facilitators. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
9 of the 1,002 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 9. The same 9 appear here every time.
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →