27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The percentage of psychological distress was similar between caregivers of cancer patients (77.6%) and caregivers of dementia patients (72.4%). 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study reports findings from a series of focus groups with persons with dementia and family caregivers intended to explore: (1) perceptions of and experiences with advance care planning (ACP); (2) concerns related to future care including, but not limited to, end-of-life care; and (3) practices that may support positive engagement with ACP. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Community-based services are important for improving outcomes for individuals with dementia and their caregivers. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with dementia may be receiving different end-of-life care from those without. 2 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A parallel mixed-methods study on 20 patient-caregiver dyads in an Asian population was conducted to explore the differential perceptions and barriers to ACP in dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Use of in-depth data, consensus methods and theoretical understanding of the intervention components produced an evidence-based intervention for further testing in end-of-life care in advanced dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our multidimensional intervention in long-term care facilities for patients with terminal dementia resulted in improved quality of care and quality of dying when compared to usual care. 4 key findings →
Participants: 193 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Estimates suggest that there are more than 10 million adult caregivers of persons with dementia, two-thirds of who experience some form of sleep disturbance during the course of their caregiving career. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy show psychometric properties that are comparable with the best available dementia-specific measures of HRQL. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Nursing home staff tended to perceive residents in more negative than positive ways. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Factors predicting the early institutionalization of demented patients were studied in 143 outpatients using univariate and multivariate life-table methods. 5 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown produced psychological consequences in caregivers of pwD, with an increase of levels of depression. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina has affected the care of older adults with dementia deeply. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The burden associated with BPSD is different for each symptom and does not always depend on frequency and severity of BPSD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 67 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Researchers in the aging field are paying increasing attention to the importance of perceived self-efficacy in understanding experiences and health-related outcomes of family caregivers. 3 key findings →
Participants: 197 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) scales are particularly important in older people as global outcome measures for interventions. 4 key findings →
Participants: 79 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The burden perceived by caregivers of patients with dementia is a fundamental prognostic aspect in the history of the disease. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There were 115,757 NH residents with dementia who self-reported pain in the last 30 days of life. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20,585 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
PLWD proactively enrolled in a dementia care program have high baseline rates of behavioral issues and their caregivers have elevated depression and stress scores. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 195 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Within-day analyses revealed time with CRs was associated with increased HR, primarily due to negative interactions. 5 key findings →
Participants: 221 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Family caregivers provide essential care and support for individuals living with dementia, yet their contributions and needs are often unrecognized within formal health care systems. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In total, 3028 posts were retrieved, including 1552 from older adult-related subreddits and 1476 from Alzheimer disease-related subreddits; 18 key topics were identified, with the most frequent topics being expressing feelings (2178/3028, 71.93%) and seeking advice and support (1982/3028, 65.46%). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Daily informal care time was 0.5 hours higher in moderate compared to mild and 1.3h higher in severe compared to mild cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,369 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →