27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This Cochrane systematic review looked for solid evidence that respite care (temporary relief for caregivers) helps caregivers or people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Participants: 753 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) pose a substantial caregiving burden in the United States, yet efforts to improve caregiver well-being have seen mixed results. 3 key findings →
Participants: 143 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After a baseline interview of 642 caregivers of aged Alzheimer's disease victims, half were offered formal respite care. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This exploratory, interpretivist, pre-implementation qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 15 participants—four people living with dementia and 11 carers—to identify their needs, preferences, and perspectives to inform the design and implementation of an in-home respite service. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The TLC study used an appropriate design and data collection procedures, along with acceptable recruitment capability. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-one articles were included. This conceptual analysis revealed the evolution of in-home respite care service content over time and summarized three key attributes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Respite for individuals caring for family living with dementia is a common way to take personal time away from caregiving. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Respite goal achievement on a given week predicted improvements in participants' ratings of their respite time-use outcomes one week later. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-two primary studies were included. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We recommend development and testing of decision aids targeting the decisions carers report finding most distressing, including those around where people should live, accessing services, and end of life treatments. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Some CG interventions can reduce CG psychological morbidity and help people with dementia stay at home longer. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Interventions had, on average, a significant, small-to-moderate effect on the improvement of ability/knowledge, subjective well-being, burden, depression, and the caregiver's anxiety as well as symptoms of the care recipient. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Vision impairment is common among older persons. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,214 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
This study aimed to examine the therapeutic mechanism of the benefit-finding therapeutic (BFT) intervention that used cognitive reappraisal and alternative thinking to construct positive aspects of caregiving (PAC), in a cluster-randomized controlled trial for Alzheimer caregivers. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Despite methodological inconsistency, supporting caregivers appears to be an effective strategy often improving well-being of caregiver or care-recipient and resulting in additional benefits for society. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Because of conflicting results, in order to clarify the state of the science it was necessary to do a systematic analysis of the literature on research testing the effect of interventions on the burden of persons caring for family members with dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Purpose of study To assess trends in family caregiving between 1999 and 2015. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregiver characteristics and provision of caregiving tasks determine caregiver burden more than care recipient characteristics. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The carers aged 56.2 (SD = 12.2); about two-thirds being female and adult-child caregivers. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results demonstrate that use of adult day care by caregivers of dementia patients results in lower levels of caregiving-related stress and better psychological well-being when compared to that of controls. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Community-based services are important for improving outcomes for individuals with dementia and their caregivers. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The association between Alzheimer caregiving and natural killer (NK) cell activity and basal plasma levels of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), cortisol, beta-endorphin, prolactin, epinephrine, norepinephrine, and neuropeptide Y was determined in 100 spousal Alzheimer caregivers and 33 age- and gender-comparable control volunteers upon intake into a study of the psychological and physiologic impact of caregiving. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Design of the physical environment is increasingly recognized as an important aid in caring for people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Half of GUIDE-eligible PwD received care from multiple caregivers and high strain was common even among caregivers considered "low-complexity" under GUIDE. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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.
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 27,380 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →