27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The Interdisciplinary Care Leader role offers a promising method for supporting and improving end-of-life care discussions between families of people with advanced dementia and nursing home staff. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The rapid growth of the oldest age groups will have a major impact on future health care costs. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A method for assessing affect states among older people with Alzheimer's disease was developed for use in a study designed to evaluate a special care unit for such residents of a nursing home. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings may suggest potential deficiencies in ambulatory care and postdischarge care related to managing comorbidities among Medicare fee-for-service ADRD patients. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nursing leaders have a responsibility to promote and facilitate social engagement and connectedness to mitigate social isolation in long-term care (LTC). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Montessori-based interventions (MBIs) were developed to promote guided participation in meaningful activities by people with dementia patients. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Less than half of administrators found it feasible to close indoor common areas, all community types reported a challenge organizing group activities for safe distancing, and more than half of residents with dementia did not wear a face covering or maintain physical distance from other residents when indicated. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Few studies examine care as a relational process in long-term care, and still fewer describe the participation of residents with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were statistically significant improvements in resident well-being (Δ = 0.44, p = 0.029), Positive Engagement Potential (Δ = 0.17, p = 0.002), and Occupational Diversity (Δ = 0.12, p = 0.014) in 2016. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 9 participants described the importance of understanding the experiences of PLWDs in order to provide high-quality dementia care and to deliver such care with the residents and their preferences as the focus. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified the centrality of "being out in the world and negotiating connections," which characterizes residents' experiences with the outside world as a process of "working out" engagement with nature, others, and the community. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia education for healthcare providers has gained growing attention in China. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We conducted a participatory research project to address this important area of care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
About 40 000 individuals depend on assisted living in long-term care facilities in Norway. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Assisted living provides housing and long-term care services to more than 811,000 older adults in the United States daily and is regulated by the states. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total, 17 papers were included in the final review. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants comprised of registered nurses (N = 4), care assistants (N = 8), bereaved relatives (N = 7), and domiciliary staff (N = 3). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A qualitative study was conducted to examine the experiences of informal caregivers of persons with dementia pertaining interprofessional collaboration with and among healthcare professionals in home care (HC), nursing homes and during home to nursing home transitions in palliative care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prior research suggests that a scarcity of dementia specialists could hamper access to disease-modifying Alzheimer's treatments. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We had 38,777 and 40,277 hits for depression and dementia, respectively, in long-term care facilities or nursing homes. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia-friendly designs are important in residential care homes but an aspect that remains neglected is the potential role of door designs in promoting wayfinding. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of this study was to use routinely collected resident assessment data from a single site to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on cognition, physical function and behavioral symptoms of residents with dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The project Aging in Place applies a novel approach to investigate how social care services in Sweden are adapted to preferences and needs of older persons living at home with dementia (including their partners). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A persistent gap remains between policy ambitions and everyday practice. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings may facilitate the timely and efficient management of CDAD in nursing home patients. 2 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
10 of the 973 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 →