Four major themes emerged: Methods of Support, Cultural Expectations and Varying Family Contributions, Lack of Self-Care, and Awareness. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Assisted-living facilities (ALFs), which provide a community for residents who require assistance throughout their day, are an important part of the long-term-care system in the United States. 5 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Average time to complete DEMQOL-CH was <5 minutes. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The majority of RC/AL patients were taking five or more medications; 16.0% of these patients were receiving IPMs. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Neither assessment condition promoted significantly greater levels of consistency (i.e., the same preference rating at Time 1 and Time 2). 5 key findings →
Participants: 21 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients were seen in an 18-month time frame (n = 159). 5 key findings →
Participants: 159 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Circumstances of death, symptoms, and treatment appeared to be similar between YOD and LOD, except that persons with LOD had significantly more somatic comorbidities and were admitted to hospital in the last three months of life more often than persons with LOD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 46 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Eighty-two percent of recommendations were successfully implemented during hospitalization and included in the discharge plan. 4 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Urinary incontinence (UI) is a debilitating and embarrassing condition that is prevalent among aging males and females. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Of 411 participants, 57% had high illness burden. 5 key findings →
Participants: 349 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 769 randomized dyads, 73% were spousal, 14% adult child, and 13% other dyads. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study aimed to explore racial/ethnic differences in the attitudes toward Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and dementia caregiving among midlife women who were family caregivers of persons living with AD (MWPLAD) in the U.S. and examine the associations of the attitudes to their health outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified a cohort of 3619 incident dementia cases, 38.9% were male, and 66.9% were non-Hispanic White. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This cross-sectional study examines upper bound and lower bound annualized Medicare costs for administering aducanumab to beneficiaries with the approved indications of mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The average cost per enrollee per month was $110, or $1,320 per annum. 5 key findings →
Participants: 360 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In both databases, total healthcare resource utilization and costs increased with number of core features. 4 key findings →
Participants: 536 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
On average, ADRD diagnosis was not significantly associated with excess Medicare payments over the last 5 years of life. 5 key findings →
Participants: 4,899 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most PWD (67%) met criteria for another manifestation of serious illness (24% advanced medical condition, 44% ADL impairment). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Average adherence was 41%. Despite this, remote measures demonstrated excellent reliability (ICCs > 0.90 after 10 sessions) and strong construct validity, with tasks loading onto memory, attention, and executive function domains. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Findingss: upport multidomain prevention strategies targeting clustered modifiable risks. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified chemicals enriched for dementia pathways, suggesting broad classes of chemicals contribute to dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive decline is closely associated with biological aging and with interconnected processes, including chronic low-grade inflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and cellular senescence. 2 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Trisomy 21 (T21) gives rise to Down syndrome (DS), the most commonly occurring chromosomal abnormality in humans. 2 key findings →
Participants: 400 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study contributes to the healthcare field by demonstrating the potential of providing a fast, transparent, and affordable assessment system that is accessible to low-income populations and clinics with limited budget. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our new NfL ELISA showed a good analytical performance (inter-plate coefficient of variation (CV) < 13%), with no cross-reactivity with neurofilament medium and heavy (NfM and NfH). 5 key findings →
Participants: 97 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.
1,038 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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 →