30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Two thirds (66%) of adult child caregivers in the control condition admitted their parent to a residential care setting compared with 37% in the treatment condition. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The combined interventions produced a significant improvement of 0.14 to 0.41 standard deviation units, on average, for caregiver burden, depression, subjective well-being, perceived caregiver satisfaction, ability/knowledge, and care receiver symptoms. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Purpose of the study During aging, musical activities can help maintain physical and mental health and cognitive abilities, but their rehabilitative use has not been systematically explored in persons with dementia (PWDs). 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Adult children receiving the NYUCI-AC completed a mean of 5.19 individual and family counseling sessions; it took on average a little over 11 months to do so. 5 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Purpose of study The authors determined short-term effects of a home environmental intervention on self-efficacy and upset in caregivers and daily function of dementia patients. 1 key finding →
Participants: 171 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Significant main effects in the expected direction were found for changes in most of these measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This 3-year randomized clinical trial tested the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary psychoeducational family group intervention in decreasing the caregivers' perceptions of the frequency and severity of behavioral problems in persons with dementia and their reactions to those problems, and in decreasing caregiver burden and depression. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Interventions had, on average, a significant, small-to-moderate effect on the improvement of ability/knowledge, subjective well-being, burden, depression, and the caregiver's anxiety as well as symptoms of the care recipient. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis 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 finding that perceived social support is strongly related to well-being but unrelated to burden reinforces the conceptual distinctiveness of the latter two concepts. 3 key findings →
Participants: 243 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Two themes were developed from 12 studies: caregiver needs related to the management of older people with dementia and caregivers' personal needs. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study provides a review and analysis of the empirical research published since 1985 that has examined the impact of race, culture, and/or ethnicity on the dementia caregiving experience. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregivers' reasons for placement included (a) the need for more skilled care (65%); (b) the caregivers' health (49%); (c) the patients' dementia-related behaviors (46%); and (d) the need for more assistance (23%). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Factors contributing to feelings of burden of caregivers of elderly persons with senile dementia were studied. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Analyzing data from more than 1,500 family caregivers from the 1996 National Caregiver Survey, this study documents the ways in which dementia care is different from other types of family caregiving. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Purpose of study To assess trends in family caregiving between 1999 and 2015. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This longitudinal study of 196 caregiver/care receiver dyads was undertaken to determine the variables predictive of caregiver decision to institutionalize a dependent with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Over the past 3 decades, more than 200 dementia caregiver interventions have been tested in randomized clinical trials and found to be efficacious. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This paper views caregiver stress as a consequence of a process comprising a number of interrelated conditions, including the socioeconomic characteristics and resources of caregivers and the primary and secondary stressors to which they are exposed.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The dementia caregiving literature is reviewed with the goals of (a) assessing the prevalence and magnitude of psychiatric and physical morbidity effects among caregivers, (b) identifying individual and contextual correlates of reported health effects and their underlying causes, and (c) examining the policy relevance of observed findings. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Data indicated that participants' needs fluctuated, with 3 key time points of heightened need: dementia diagnosis, in-home care, and transition into residential care. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Although several results were consistent with prior findings, caregiving indicators (i.e., burden and self-rated health) and community-based service use were significant predictors of earlier placement. 1 key finding →
Participants: 3,944 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events