Baseline assessments were conducted on 133 family caregivers of veterans living with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 67 Evidence: high
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.
Among the 23 studies, 10 (43.5%) focused on mobile health apps, 8 (34.8%) on video consultations, and 5 (21.7%) on remote monitoring tools. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 23 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this randomized trial of dementia care programs, no significant differences existed between health system-based and community-based care interventions nor between either active intervention or usual care regarding patient behavioral symptoms and caregiver strain. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 2,176 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among community-dwelling patients with moderate to severe dementia and their caregivers, dementia palliative care, compared with usual care, did not significantly improve patients' neuropsychiatric symptoms through 24 months. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 201 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For music-based therapeutic interventions compared to usual care, we found moderate-certainty evidence that, at the end of treatment, music-based therapeutic interventions probably improved depressive symptoms slightly (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to -0.04; 9 studies, 441 participants), and we found low-certainty evidence that it may have improved overall behavioural problems (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.02; 10 studies, 385 participants). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,720 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 228 articles were screened at the title and abstract levels, and 120 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 23 eligible studies were included in the narrative synthesis. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 228 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Interventions for family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) incorporate diverse elements, but drivers of success are unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Eighty-one percent of eligible participants were not aware of a dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The MBI component significantly improved multiple caregiver outcomes, with reduced depressive symptoms (β = -2.13 [95% CI, -2.85 to -1.38]; P Conclusions and relevance In this clinical trial of informal caregivers of people with dementia, synergistic interaction effects were noted for MBI, which enhanced the benefits of SC and BPM on depression. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 704 records met the inclusion criteria for bibliometric analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 704 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Music Interventions for Dementia and Depression in Elderly care was a large, multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to examine the effects of group music therapy, recreational choir singing, or both compared with standard care. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,021 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 5390 participants (mean [SD] age, 76.9 [4.8] years; 2915 women [54.1%]), there were 2655 individuals (49.3%) with less than 12 years of education. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 1,078 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 5 721 711 patients (3 302 579 female and 2 419 132 male) with incident dementia between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 711 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One hundred forty-nine carers enrolled in the study. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 149 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intervention group showed less discomfort (-1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.88 to -0.23) and fewer sentinel events (-0.40; 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.16), specifically pneumonia (-0.08; 95% CI = -0.14, -0.02). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 116 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 31 studies were selected for this review, revealing six distinct categories of social support interventions for caregivers of older adults with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
61/100
This study included 54 articles, comprising 14,446 participants from 10 countries. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 54 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean age of the patients was 73.1 ± 11.7, and the time since diagnosis was 3.9 ± 3.1 years; 64.8% had Alzheimer's type dementia, and 53.4% (n = 47) had mild dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 47 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This paper reports first-year, real-world results from one of the 96 'Established Track' organizations in the CMS GUIDE dementia care model, which launched nationally on July 1, 2024. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 158 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The intervention revealed no substantial between-group differences in caregiver burden (β=-3.80, 95% CI -11.25 to 3.65, P=.32), quality of life (β=-1.55, 95% CI -6.59 to 3.49, P=.55), or social support (β=0.85, 95% CI -2.86 to 4.56, P=.65). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Attendance was good (82.8% attended ≥4/6 sessions). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Improving digital technology for caregivers requires studies with larger populations and longitudinal outcomes. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT Participants: 240 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Two hundred eighty dyads were enrolled. Caregivers during the intervention period reported lower levels of RSS of 0.7 points (standard deviation [SD]: 0.8) compared to the caregivers in the control period. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ACT group reported significantly greater improvements in stress (P=.043) and psychological QoL (P=.014) in the posttest compared to the control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An initial database search yielded 3,977 studies of which 22 were included in this review. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →