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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 51–75 of 115 studies in The Gerontologist (page 3 of 5) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 115 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.

Subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,259 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

“It may cost you your money, it costs you your life”: a framework for financial hardship in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-07-25

Among 52 participants recruited, 27 were former caregivers, 16 were current caregivers, and nine were persons with dementia; experiences reflected Alzheimer's (n = 18), sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob (n = 12), Lewy body (n = 7), and other dementias (n = 15). 5 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

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

Dementia caregiver intervention research: in search of clinical significance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2002-10-01

Although many studies have reported small to moderate statistically significant effects on a broad range of outcomes, only a small proportion of these studies achieved clinically meaningful outcomes. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

The prevalence of dementia in a statewide sample of new nursing home admissions aged 65 and older: diagnosis by expert panel. Epidemiology of Dementia in Nursing Homes Research Group

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2000-12-01

This study estimated the prevalence of dementia in 2,285 new admissions age 65+ to a statewide sample of 59 nursing homes in Maryland, 1992-1995. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Relationship Between Perceived and Objective Financial Abilities Among Older Adults: Results From the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-04-07

In years when older adults subjectively reported fewer difficulties with their finances, they objectively performed better at financial tasks and this relationship became stronger over 10 years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,802 Evidence: low

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

An ethnographic study of stigma and ageism in residential care or assisted living

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2008-08

Four themes emerged that relate to stigma in RC-AL: (a) ageism in long-term care; (b) stigma as related to disease and illness; (c) sociocultural aspects of stigma; and (d) RC-AL as a stigmatizing setting. 4 key findings →

Participants: 309 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Home Health Care and Place of Death in Medicare Beneficiaries With and Without Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2024-11-01

Receiving any home health care in the last 3 years of life was associated with a lower probability of inpatient death without hospice (Pr 23.3% vs 31.5%, p < .001), and this effect was stronger when home health care began prior to versus during the last year of life (Pr 22.5% vs 24.3%, p < .001). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Assessment and diagnosis of dementia in Hispanic and non-Hispanic white outpatients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2013-01-23

When using ethnic group-specific norms, NP and functional abilities predicted diagnosis in both groups with no significant differences but BPS was only significant in Hispanics. 5 key findings →

Participants: 444 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Caregiving Burden Among Caregivers of People With Dementia Through the Lens of Intersectionality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2022-05-01

Surprisingly, compared to White female caregivers, all the other groups were 37% (95% CI 0.41-0.95) to 71% (95% CI 0.15-0.56) less likely to have emotional burden. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

African American, Chinese, and Latino family caregivers' impressions of the onset and diagnosis of dementia: cross-cultural similarities and differences

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2005-12-01

All participants conveyed striking similarities of thought about normalization of cognitive symptoms until one critical event, usually relocation, precipitated family awareness that an elder's behavior was not the result of "normal aging." 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Exploring the unmet needs of Latino dementia caregivers: a qualitative study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-09-09

Four themes were derived from the data analysis as key areas of caregiving needs for Latinos: need to connect socially with others; need for resources to provide care; need to understand dementia and navigating existing resources and future care planning; and need for empathic, culturally congruent healthcare. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Caregiver Sleep Quality and Depression: The Roles of Dementia Caregiving, Support Availability, and Rural–Urban Contexts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-03-23

Probable dementia caregiving predicted worse sleep quality, which mediated the relationship with higher depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,422 Evidence: low

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

↑ 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