27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Spousal caregivers of persons living with dementia (PLwD) often experience high overload and loneliness due to the intensive and ongoing nature of caregiving for their partner. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Informal caregivers of patients with neurodegenerative diseases are confronted with significant psychological distress. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Adults of 78.8 years on average, with low to middle socio-economic status, low education levels, and multiple comorbidities, have adverse well-being and support conditions, except for the spiritual component. 5 key findings →
Participants: 73 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CES effectively distinguished between different levels of caregiver strain. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Assistive technologies hold significant potential to enhance the quality of life for persons with dementia and their caregivers by addressing key concerns related to safety, independence, and social inclusion. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 11 dyads participated in the study. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings revealed three core areas: (a) types of digital tools used, including online platforms, video conferencing, mobile applications and SMS services; (b) educational domains addressed, such as knowledge and skills, psychological support, communication and social interaction, and environmental and technological adaptation; and (c) implementation strategies and outcomes, highlighting personalisation, cultural sensitivity and technological adaptability, which improved knowledge, emotional well-being and carer self-efficacy. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Data point to cultural, socioeconomic and systemic barriers to accessing quality EOL care for PLWD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Traditional dementia-prevention programs have limited accessibility and lack continuous monitoring, making sustained cognitive and emotional support challenging. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We showed that consumer wearables are a valid tool for long-term data collection in this vulnerable patient population. 3 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundEvidence on the effects of caregiver-assisted combined exercise and cognitive interventions for persons with dementia (PwD) is inconsistent. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A greater number of needs (B=.42), polypharmacy (B=.33), and unmanaged symptoms (B=.31) significantly predicted higher triage priority (p<.001). 1 key finding →
Participants: 461 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 29-item needs assessment showed strong internal consistency, with a mean Cronbach’s alpha of .89 and McDonald’s omega of .90. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
End-of-life topics were discussed in 36% of consultations (in regional hospitals, 53%; in academic settings, 27%), and predominantly during diagnostic consultations (54%). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To explore changes in performance, weaknesses, and utilization of the long-term care (LTC) system for older people with disabilities and dementia (OPWDD) in Zhejiang Province, China, thereby providing a reference for decision-making amid a progressively aging population. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Skilled home health care (HHC) is a critical service for community-dwelling older adults with dementia, but the majority of evidence about its use and quality is based on Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. 1 key finding →
Participants: 316,407 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Disability, characterised by the loss of ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL), is a defining feature of dementia that results in growing caregiver burden and the eventual need for alternative care or nursing home placement. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Future studies should consider culturally tailoring interventions for Hispanic/Latino caregivers from differing subcultures, utilizing relevant technology in studies, and evaluating the functional level of the care receiver and assess where he/she is in the disease process continuum. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The costs of illness can be huge; medical bankruptcy is a significant problem in the United States [9]. 1 key finding →
Participants: 27,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The results were consistent for both nursing homes and data were aggregated. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Three main categories were created: (1) Impact of observed cognitive decline, (2) Impact of diagnosis on service engagement, and (3) Support and follow-up for family caregivers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This exploratory, interpretivist, pre-implementation qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 15 participants—four people living with dementia and 11 carers—to identify their needs, preferences, and perspectives to inform the design and implementation of an in-home respite service. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Respondents (N=69) identified access to resources as the most important unmet need for caregivers (53%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is limited experience in combining interdisciplinary rehabilitation for persons with dementia and caregiver support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Three themes were identified: (1) Struggling with conflicting emotions and social challenges - caregivers reported experiencing stress, physical exhaustion, and emotional strain due to constant availability and the challenges of managing behavioral changes, further intensified by isolation and shrinking social networks. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
10 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 10. The same 10 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 27,380 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 →