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.

Find studies

Showing 1–21 of 21 studies in Caregiving published 2011 · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 21 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

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.

Genome-wide association studies of cerebral white matter lesion burden: the CHARGE consortium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2011-06-01

This large GWAS of WMH burden in community-based cohorts of individuals of European descent identifies a novel locus on chromosome 17. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,024 Evidence: high

Decreases in depression scores at 13 weeks did not differ between 111 controls and 107 participants allocated to receive sertraline (mean difference 1·17, 95% CI -0·23 to 2·58; p=0·10) or mirtazapine (0·01, -1·37 to 1·38; p=0·99), or between participants in the mirtazapine and sertraline groups (1·16, -0·25 to 2·57; p=0·11); these findings persisted to 39 weeks. 3 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: low

Sixteen men and 24 women diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease participated in the study. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Senile plaques are a prominent pathological feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD), but little is understood about the association of glial cells with plaques or about the dynamics of glial responses through the disease course. 2 key findings →

Participants: 91 Evidence: low

Disruption of functional connectivity between brain regions may represent an early functional consequence of β-amyloid pathology prior to clinical Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Family caregiving in dementia: the Asian perspective of a global problem

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2011-01-20

A full understanding of the specific way that culture could influence family caregivers' burdens may play an important part in the development of a holistic model for family-centered care. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Predictors of caregiver burden in caregivers of individuals with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of advanced nursing 2011-07-28

This article is a report on a study of the multidimensional predictors of caregiver burden in caregivers of individuals with dementia using nationally representative data. 1 key finding →

Participants: 302 Evidence: low

Disinhibition is a common behavioural symptom in frontotemporal dementia but its neural correlates are still debated. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

The sirtuin pathway, which is most notable for its association with the anti-ageing effects of calorie restriction, has received particular attention, and pharmacological or transgenic upregulation of the sirtuin pathway has shown promising results in laboratory models of ageing. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

White matter lesions in Parkinson disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2011-02-22

Pure vascular parkinsonism without evidence of nigral Lewy body pathology may occur as a distinct clinicopathological entity, but a much more frequent occurrence is the comorbid presence of age-associated white matter lesions (WMLs) in idiopathic Parkinson disease (PD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Of sound mind and body: depression, disease, and accelerated aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience 2011-01-01

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with a high rate of developing serious medical comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, dementia, osteoporosis, diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million people are diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury (TBI), about 75% of which are classified as mild TBIs or concussions. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Random effects results suggest that caregiver burden weakens the inverse relationship between health utilities and institutional service use, leading to greater likelihood of institutional use than would be expected at a given level of health. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed