The prevalence of dementia increases with age. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
41/100
People living with dementia (PLWD) have voiced a desire to remain in their home environment as long as possible; unfortunately, there is limited integrated person-and family-centered community support. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
High-burden caregivers were more likely to be caring for patients with a diagnosis of ALS-FTD (p =.0001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Five out of six enrolled dyads completed the sessions. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hispanic family caregivers of people with dementia experience higher levels of stress compared to non-Hispanic white caregivers. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the difficulties faced by caregivers who have to provide continuous '24/7' care to persons with dementia with minimal formal and informal support. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
The analysis suggests a complex network of interacting variables. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Twenty-five caregivers participated in one of four intervention groups; 21 caregivers completed the intervention (attended at least five of six group sessions). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Thirty-four studies were included. Psychosocial interventions generating enrichment among dyads mainly involved supporting dyadic engagement in shared activities, carer education or training, or structural change to the environment around PLWD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total 148 caregivers participated in the project with 57 of them from Australia (26 and 31 in the qualitative and quantitative strands respectively) and 91 of them from China (23 and 68 in the qualitative and quantitative strands respectively). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of nine VA family caregivers of PWD participated in this pilot study. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Patients with mild AD had higher total costs, patient medical costs, patient social care costs, and family caregiver informal care costs than did patients with MCI; however, only patient medical costs were significantly different (p = 0.022). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All but one patient showed one or more neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Average caregiver burden on the ZBI was 36.1 (SD = 14.6; range = 12-58). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most people with dementia live at home and rely on family and friends who provide unpaid care and support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study is one the first to account of attribute development for a DCE examining the public preferences for autonomy enhancing dementia care in Ireland. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A new assessment of Activities of Daily Living has been developed specifically for use with people with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Bayer Activities of Daily Living Scale (B-ADL) has been developed on an international basis to assess deficits in the performance of everyday activities. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Human immunodeficiency virus-type 1 (HIV-l) infection is the most common preventable and treatable cause of neurocognitive impairment in individuals under age 50 years. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS) is an informant-based, multiple-choice questionnaire that assesses severity from the mildest to the most severe stages in the major functional and cognitive domains affected in Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Anticholinergic toxicity is a common problem in the elderly. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
40/100
Potentially treatable neuropsychiatric symptoms are common in AD and represent a major source of distress among caregivers. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
40/100
These data indicate that the burden of illness among people with arthritis is higher than for nonarthritics and that this burden appears to be increasing over time, particularly in RA. 5 key findings →
Participants: 450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Kolb’s experiential learning theory has a positive impact on alleviating the caregiving burden and reducing anxiety and depression among family caregivers of dementia patients. 1 key finding →
Participants: 55 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The caregiver burden was found at a moderate to severe level with the average score of 58.14(12.84). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 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.
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 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 →