alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 276–300 of 833 studies in Caregiving (page 12 of 34) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

What “Caregiving” covers

Caregiving — Research on the people doing the caring: their health, their workload, and what support actually helps.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Unmet needs of community-residing persons with dementia and their informal caregivers: findings from the maximizing independence at home study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2013-12-01

Many community-residing PWD and their caregivers have unmet dementia-related needs for care, services, and support. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 254 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Brain morphology in older African Americans, Caribbean Hispanics, and whites from northern Manhattan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2008-08-01

Older age and vascular disease, particularly among African Americans, are associated with increased brain atrophy and WMH burden. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 769 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Antisense oligonucleotide silencing of FUS expression as a therapeutic approach in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Nature medicine 2022-01-24

Fused in sarcoma (FUS) is an RNA-binding protein that is genetically and pathologically associated with rare and aggressive forms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The presence of sodium dodecyl sulphate-stable Abeta dimers is strongly associated with Alzheimer-type dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2010-04-19

The molecular pathways leading to Alzheimer-type dementia are not well understood, but the amyloid beta-protein is believed to be centrally involved. 4 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in dementia caregiving: review and analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The Gerontologist 1997-06-01

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

Associations Between Cardiovascular Risk, Structural Brain Changes, and Cognitive Decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2020-05-01

Higher cardiovascular risk burden may predict decline in episodic memory, working memory, and perceptual speed and is associated with neurodegeneration and vascular lesions in the brain. 4 key findings →

Participants: 378 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Predictors of institutionalization for people with dementia living at home with a carer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 1998-10-01

Both behaviour and psychological functioning and the caring environment can help in predicting which patients with dementia currently living at home will enter an institution 1 year later. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Coping strategies, anxiety and depression in caregivers of people with Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2008-09-01

Using emotion-focussed coping strategies in response to caregiver burden seemed to protect caregivers from developing higher anxiety levels a year later; however using problem-focussed strategies did not. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Absence of care among community-dwelling older adults with dementia and functional limitations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Nature Aging 2025-03-17

Assistance with daily activities is crucial for persons living with dementia and functional limitations, yet many face substantial challenges in accessing adequate care and support. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A Skill-Based multimodal intervention for dementia caregivers: impact on burden and anxiety

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 2025-03-17

The sample consisted predominantly of women (79% in the intervention group, 69% in the control group), with daughters forming the largest caregiver subgroup (66.6% and 52.4%, respectively). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 42 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The evolution of serious health-related suffering from 1990 to 2021: an update to The Lancet Commission on global access to palliative care and pain relief

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The Lancet Global Health 2025-02-26

The SHS global burden increased by 74% between 1990 and 2021 to almost 73·5 million individuals, with population growth accounting for only half of that increase. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

2016 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2016-04-01

This report describes the public health impact of Alzheimer's disease, including incidence and prevalence, mortality rates, costs of care, and the overall impact on caregivers and society. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

The relationship between cerebral Alzheimer's disease pathology and odour identification in old age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2006-09-29

The results suggest that difficulty in identifying familiar odours in old age is partly due to the accumulation of neurofibrillar pathology in central olfactory regions. 2 key findings →

Participants: 166 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Tailored activities to manage neuropsychiatric behaviors in persons with dementia and reduce caregiver burden: a randomized pilot study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry 2008-03-01

Tailoring activities to the capabilities of dementia patients and training families in activity use resulted in clinically relevant benefits for patients and caregivers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

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.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

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.

What this library is — and isn't

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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed