28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Bivariate analyses indicated that nonmetro dementia caregivers were less racially/ethnically diverse (82.7% White, non-Hispanic) and more were spouses/partners (20.2%) than their metro counterparts (66.6% White, non-Hispanic; 13.3% spouses/partners). 5 key findings →
Participants: 808 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings confirm that the non-cognitive features of Alzheimer's disease are stressful for carers and indicate specific relationships between mood-related and behavioural signs of depression, walking and sleep disruptions and hallucinations in patients and adverse carer outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We observed that greater social isolation was related to increased anxiety in people with cognitive impairment (coefficients = 0.7242, t = 2.51, p = 0.015), adjusting for severity of cognitive impairment, race, pain, depression, activities of daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,343 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The predictors of the Social Loneliness factors were as follows; 1) perceived social support (R2 = 0.33): Neuroticism (β= 0.353), depression (β= 0.205), and perceived health (β= 0.133); 2) social participation (R2 = 0.24): Conscientiousness (β= -0.344) and Extraversion (β= -0.263); 3) use of communication technologies (R2 = 0.44): age (β= 0.409), type of cohabitation (β= 0.331), cognitive reserve (β= -0.303), and Conscientiousness (β= -0.247); all p < 0.05. 3 key findings →
Participants: 105 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Oldest-old care recipients were more impaired in cognitive function and instrumental ADL; there was no difference in behavior and basic ADL. 5 key findings →
Participants: 458 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study results identified that dementia-related factors were the most significant factors, representing 25.6% of caregiver burden and were followed by caregiving-related factors explaining caregiver burden significantly. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,133 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of the respondents, 60/93 (65%) were women. 5 key findings →
Participants: 93 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although there were no significant changes in caregiver burden, we were encouraged by the increased emotional well-being of our participants following the completion of our program. 4 key findings →
Participants: 21 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The NPI-D provides a reliable and valid measure of subjective caregiver distress in relation to neuropsychiatric symptoms measured by the NPI. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The revised UCLA loneliness scale score was not significantly associated with age, years of education, mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, gender, living status, visual impairment, hearing impairment, and marital status. 5 key findings →
Participants: 152 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individual's loneliness was stable when their spouse's cognition remained normal, but increased with the spouse's TCIND. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,206 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The PWD and ICG interviews provided insight into the positive impacts of VP, challenges of VP, program barriers, program facilitating factors, and suggestions for future improvement for the OSCC55 + VPs. 4 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four major themes emerged: forgetting to eat, developing food aversions, strong preferences for sweets and weight changes. 5 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research on interpersonal interaction dynamics in relationships between persons with dementia and their family caregivers has been limited. 5 key findings →
Participants: 350 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the 12 neuropsychiatric symptoms investigated, 10 were significantly associated with caregiver burden, while 8 showed significant correlations with depressive symptoms. 4 key findings →
Participants: 134 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This cross-sectional study explores caregivers' perceptions of feeding/eating difficulties in persons living with dementia, their support provisions, and the associated burdens. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sleep was correlated more among dyads living with dementia than those with other chronic conditions. 5 key findings →
Participants: 462 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Breakdown (coded as 0) was associated with caregivers changing topic (median = -11.45, 95% credibility interval [CrI; -24.34, -4.37]), ignoring (median = -11.49, 95% CrI [-24.49, -4.72]), giving commands (median = -10.74, 95% CrI [-24.22, -3.38]), and taking over the task (median = -4.06, 95% CrI [-7.28, -1.77]). 5 key findings →
Participants: 221 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adjusted for functional impairments and sociodemographic variables, neuropsychiatric symptoms were associated with more caregiver burden (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No significant effects were found for caregiver strain, depressive symptoms, and distress related to neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research on caregiver identity in the context of memory impairment has focused primarily on more advanced stages of the cognitive impairment trajectory (e.g., dementia caregivers), failing to capture the complex dynamics of early caregiver identity development (e.g., MCI; mild cognitive impairment caregivers). 5 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean follow-up interval was 25.0 ± 12.2 months, and two patients died during follow-up. 5 key findings →
Participants: 260 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three themes were identified; 1) intersectionality in the Korean American caregiver experience, 2) complex family dynamics, and 3) dementia care barriers and caregiver support needs. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This is the first study adopting the multiphase optimisation strategy to identify the most active and engaging components of a psychological intervention for caregivers of patients with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Researchers are continuing to focus on the nature and sources of burden of family caregivers of persons living with dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 76 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
10 of the 195 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 →