People with advanced dementia in their final phase of life have a multitude of individual and complex needs. 2 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Unmet PC needs were highly prevalent (78.2%). 4 key findings →
Participants: 359 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
More than 50% of older adults with AD/ADRD visit the emergency department (ED) each year [3, 4] and those who do are seriously ill, have significant healthcare costs (e.g., hospital admissions, repeat ED visits) and mortality [4-6]. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Rates of hospice use observed in this study (22%) were considerably higher than previously reported, although persons with dementia may continue to be underreferred. 2 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
= 18 556) lived in care homes before death. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Better communication, greater resident comfort, no tube feeding, and care in a specialized dementia unit are modifiable factors that may improve satisfaction with care in advanced dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seriously ill, older adults in an urban ED have substantial palliative care needs. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Qualitative methods of service evaluation facilitated a broader and deeper understanding of a range of perspectives, which, with other components of rapid participatory appraisal, generated potential solutions to improve care. 1 key finding →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For older people living with a diagnosis of dementia, the experience of living and dying in a care home is inextricably linked. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this community-based cohort, subjects with severe AD were more likely to be hospitalized than unaffected subjects. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
This small non-randomized study is the first end-of-life care in dementia intervention to report an increase in family satisfaction with a reduction in hospital deaths. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ACP is a multifactorial process, which may lean on professional caregivers' guidance. 2 key findings →
Participants: 26 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Consultations appear to reduce acute care use and (potentially) burdensome transitions for dying residents with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Case conferencing provides opportunities to improve care palliative care outcomes for older people with dementia by engaging family and all relevant internal and external health providers in prospective care planning. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To understand family members' perspectives on person- and family-centered end-of-life care provided to nursing home (NH) residents with advanced dementia, we conducted a qualitative follow-up interview with 16 respondents who had participated in an earlier prospective study, Choices, Attitudes, and Strategies for Care of Advance Dementia at End of Life (CASCADE). 1 key finding →
Participants: 16 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study highlights the need for nursing homes to employ specialist nurses who have been trained in the appropriate knowledge and skills to deal with the challenges of end-of-life care for people with advanced dementia and pain. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Family caregivers of nursing home residents with dementia received an educational booklet and a family care conference with a trained facilitator to discuss their relative's future care. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Persons with advanced dementia are frequently exposed to antimicrobials, especially during the 2 weeks before death. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
172 patients with symptomatic prion disease were identified. 165 (94.8%) patients experienced ≥1 symptom/sign likely to benefit from palliative care, yet only 113 (65.7%) patients accessed palliative care resources during the illness course (hospice care: 39.7%; palliative care consultation: 14.9% inpatient, 6.9% outpatient; both: 3.4%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 172 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 2,435,099 weighted hospitalizations, palliative care documentation was present in 65,675 (2.70%), increasing from 2.13% in 2016 to 3.43% in 2022. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Carers' knowledge about dementia was moderate overall, with higher scores among those with greater education and previous dementia exposure. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intervention area consisted of two hospitals and the 21 nursing homes (NHs) around them compared with another, geographically separate, hospital and the 13 homes around it. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on the perceptions of bereaved family members, important opportunities exist to improve decision-making in feeding tube insertion. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment admitted to acute care hospitals, for-profit ownership, larger hospital size, and greater ICU use was associated with increased rates of feeding tube insertion, even after adjusting for patient-level characteristics. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This paper will describe initiatives within the RHS frameworks of the National Health Group (NHG) and the Alexandra Health System (AHS) to forge a frailty-ready healthcare system across the spectrum, which includes the well healthy ("living well"), the well unhealthy ("living with illness"), the unwell unhealthy ("living with frailty"), and the end-of-life (EoL) ("dying well"). 5 key findings →
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
- 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events
Last updated