A total of 57 articles were included in the review, including 3182 participants. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,182 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This review suggests the advantage of combined interventions over exercise with comparable effects when compared with cognitive interventions in the population with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,910 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
70/100
The findings of this review provide insight into catalysing the paradigm shift from 'reducing stress' to 'optimising positive experience' in developing caregiving support services for dementia, and may guide future empirical study to explain this unique dimension of caregiving experience. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,862 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Whether the cognitive benefits of physical exercise can improve the overall well-being of this group remains unknown. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 120 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Physical exercise, aerobic exercise in particular, benefits global cognition in MCI patients. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Advance care planning is acceptable for people with dementia and their carers and is associated with improved outcomes. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed to calculate the pooled standardized mean differences between overall symptoms and each type of symptom. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall burden was greater among adult-child caregivers, especially those who lived with the patient and who had other family duties. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 251 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The machine learning model developed in this study demonstrated strong classification performance in detecting and differentiating depression, anxiety, and apathy. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Ageing societies and a rising prevalence of dementia are associated with increasing demand for care home places. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 15 articles that were included, most used qualitative methods (N = 13) and were conducted in long-term care facilities (N = 14). 1 key finding →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For older people living with a diagnosis of dementia, the experience of living and dying in a care home is inextricably linked. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found no papers that informed the 'cultural aspects of care' domain. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Case conferencing provides opportunities to improve care palliative care outcomes for older people with dementia by engaging family and all relevant internal and external health providers in prospective care planning. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Family caregivers of patients with frontotemporal dementia identify behavioral disturbances as most troubling. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Six core themes were identified through the synthesis of data from 17 studies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This privileging, also known as implicit rationing, is theoretically and physiologically associated with a rise in the incidence of complications such as pressure injuries, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and delirium. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 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 →