27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Dementia diagnosis recording in general hospitals is increasing but remains less likely in some groups. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 21,387 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The cohort sample included 5058 beneficiaries with dementia (mean [SD] age, 85.5 [8.0] years; 3038 women [60.1%]; 809 [16.0%] non-Hispanic Black, 357 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 3892 non-Hispanic White respondents [76.9%]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,058 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Antipsychotic initiation and use were common during hospitalization, most often for delirium, and individuals were frequently discharged on these medications. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 17,775 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A large proportion of the Medicare PD population resides in an LTCF. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 38,334 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among hospitalized older adults with serious illness, a pragmatic clinician-facing communication-priming intervention significantly improved documentation of goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record, with a greater effect size in racially or ethnically minoritized patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 3,918 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Age, sex, functional limitation, and malnutrition seem to be the strongest predictors of death for patients with Alzheimer's disease in nursing homes. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,264 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ARIC study enrolled 15,792 participants (27% Black) aged 45-64 years. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15,792 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Physicians noted impairment in a minority of impaired patients. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,107 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among 143 331 older adults with dementia (83 536 [58.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 83.8 [7.5] years), 1312 (0.9%) received a feeding tube in hospital and 142 019 (99.1%) did not. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A minority of NH residents with advanced dementia received hospice care. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
SubD was more prevalent than MDD in these primary care settings. 3 key findings →
Participants: 221 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Variation in use of APMs in U.S. nursing homes based upon facility characteristics exemplifies the need for a more systematic protocol guiding the use of these medications, along with heightened regulatory policies and enforcement. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The incidence of PUs was 0.38 per person-year in the NH. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,938 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Directives to forgo hospitalization for U.S. NH residents with advanced dementia are uncommon and are associated with the organizational features of the facilities caring for them and the intensity of end-of-life care practiced in the region, as well as individual resident characteristics. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 91,521 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Care for U.S. nursing home residents with LRI and dementia is more aggressive than care for Dutch residents, particularly in residents with severe dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Reduced ED attendances in the first wave of the pandemic suggest opportunities for reducing low severity presentations to ED in the future, but also raise the possibility of harm from delayed or missed care. 4 key findings →
Participants: 243,667 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Health care aides frequently report care that is rushed and tasks omitted due to lack of time. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 583 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In multivariate analysis, feeding tube use was found to be associated with swallowing problems (odds ratio (OR) 5.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.3-6.8); urban location of nursing home (OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.3-3.5); non-white race (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.9-3.6); stroke (OR 2.5, 95% CI 2.0-3.1); and absence of dementia (OR 2.5, 95% CI 2.0-3.1). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,997 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia is often unrecognized and undocumented in private practice settings. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A diagnosis of dementia confers an increased risk of either death or further admission within the following 12 months, highlighting the need for better cognitive screening in the acute setting, as well as targeted intervention such as comprehensive geriatric assessment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The PRISM-PC questionnaire captures primary care patients' acceptance, perceived harms, and perceived benefits of dementia screening. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 315 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A heterogeneous community sample (n=371) of predominantly ethnic minority elderly assessed by standardized research protocol, 231 of whom met criteria for dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
Participants: 371 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In individuals without a prior diagnosis of cognitive impairment, the prevalence of dementia was low, but the prevalence of CIND was high. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Previous studies have indicated a prevalence of dementia in older admissions of ∼42% in a single London teaching hospital, and 21% in four Queensland hospitals. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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 27,780 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.
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 →