A novel method using an EHR phenotype plus brief medical record review is effective to identify hospitalized patients with late-stage dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Persons dying with advanced dementia admitted to nursing homes have different characteristics compared to those admitted to home care services. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,730 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Community-based palliative care of people who die with or of dementia is relatively infrequent but associated with significant reductions in hospital emergency department use in the last year of life. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,261 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Enrollees in a comprehensive dementia care comanagement program had high engagement in advance care planning, high rates of hospice use, and low acute care utilization near the end of life. 1 key finding →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 321 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The majority of residents were stable in their care dependency status over two subsequent 6-month periods. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Residents who died from non-sudden causes between 1 October 2013 and 31 May 2014 in these facilities were included (n = 674). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 674 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most veterans with LLE/AD taking statins for secondary prevention do not discontinue statins following CLC admission. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 13,110 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Questionably beneficial medications are common in advanced dementia, even as death approaches. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 323 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the literature concerning place of death of people with dementia and the preferences for location of death of people with dementia as well as family carers and healthcare providers preferred location of death for patients with dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caring for people with dementia in primary care demands the same systematic approach as the management of other long-term conditions. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study examined the impact of advance care planning (ACP) on healthcare utilization among older adults with normal cognition and impaired cognition/dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,698 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alive PWD (n = 804) were 2.36 times more likely to have an overnight hospital stay (p = 0.004) and 1.96 times more likely to have multiple hospitalizations when caregivers found it physically difficult to provide care (p = 0.011). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 899 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, hospice care in NHs does not appear to increase government expenditures. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,774 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Residence in an SCU is associated with some, but not all, markers of better quality end-of-life care among nursing home residents with advanced dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 43 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Rural residence was also associated with lower risk of more than 10 days of hospitalization and ICU admission. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,710 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hospice enrollment results in lower combined Medicare/Medicaid expenditures in the last month of life, particularly among short-stay NH residents. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,774 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The most common reasons for hospitalization in LBD are potentially modifiable. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 178 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When prospectively validated at the bedside and used as a continuous measure, the ability of the ADEPT score to identify nursing home residents with advanced dementia at high risk of death within 6 months was modest, albeit better than hospice eligibility guidelines. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
60/100
These findings underscore the complexity of the hospice patient population and highlight a potential need to risk adjust the per diem hospice reimbursement rates to account for increased resource requirements for hospices serving patients with higher comorbidity burden. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 27,166 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
60/100
Among hospitalized patients with serious illness, documented goals-of-care discussions identified by NLP were more common among patients with older age and increased burden of acute or chronic illness, and less common among racially or ethnically minoritized patients. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review highlights characteristics that could help identify patients at risk of ED attendance near the end of life and potential service-related factors to reduce risks. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After backward stepwise selection in year 0, the following factors were associated with increased risk of death by more than 10%: being hospitalized; having congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or dementia; having moderate to high pain; having worse well-being; having functional status in the transitional or end-of-life phase; having any problems with appetite; receiving end-of-life home care; and living in a nursing home. 2 key findings →
Participants: 494 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recording of a palliative care approach for non-cancer conditions has increased since the introduction of the UK End-of-Life Care Strategy, but remains inadequate. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,426 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The late initiation of palliative care (especially when advance care planning is lacking) and palliative care for residents without cancer, dementia or closely involved relatives deserve attention in all countries. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,298 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The cohort experienced 496 suspected infections; 72.4% were treated with antimicrobials, most commonly quinolones (39.8%) and third- or fourth-generation cephalosporins (20.6%). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 Where this research is being discussed: events