27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among SNF admissions from 2013 to 2018, the share of ACO-attributed beneficiaries increased from 7.6% to 20.2%, MA enrollees increased from 25.2% to 32.8%, and non-ACO-attributed TM enrollees decreased from 67.2% to 47.3%. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We enrolled 195 patients in the CARES dementia care program. 3 key findings →
Participants: 195 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study investigated whether hospital-adopted health information technology (HIT) is associated with a reduction in the frequency of preventable emergency department (ED) visits for patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We assessed the spatiotemporal patterns of hospitalization with comorbid cancer and dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found significant county-level variability in utilization of high-quality home health. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified three main themes of palliative hope in late-stage dementia: 1) Life is good and there is still time, 2) Agency and identity are not lost, and 3) Death will be good and professional support is available. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Personal support workers (PSWs) in long-term care (LTC) homes provide the most care to people living with dementia, yet receive the least education compared to other healthcare professionals. 1 key finding →
Participants: 39 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 22 total CCMs, 12 participated in this study (employed as a CCM for a median [IQR] of 2 [1-3] years; 12 [100%] female) and identified populations that they perceived to especially benefit from the program, including PLWD, patients in hospice, and patients living in group homes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Most persons with dementia in the U.S. die in long-term care communities. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Promising therapeutic interventions that target the underlying pathophysiology are changing the landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To examine telehealth adoption and discontinuation by home health agencies (HHAs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of telehealth pre-pandemic diffusion into the industry and its continued use once the pandemic abated. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Opioid use was significantly higher in females and Whites and varied by states. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There was a trend toward increased risk of being assaulted in the last year associated with being in a non-SCU facility. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although Alzheimer disease (AD) remains a clinical diagnosis, biomarkers are in use to support the diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Participants: 205 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) has been rapidly growing. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use-defined as the use of high-risk medications that can increase the risk of adverse events such as physical, cognitive, and functional decline; delirium; hospitalizations; and mortality-remains a significant concern in older adults in the US.Numerous guidelines, including the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria 1 and the STOPP criteria, 2 define PIMs as medications for which the risk of adverse effects outweighs potential benefits or are inappropriate for specific populations or disease states, such dementia or kidney disease.PIM use may be particularly harmful in populations experiencing other health care disparities, as communities experiencing other consequences of health care inequity, including limited access to physicians or pharmacies, greater financial stress, and a higher comorbidity burden, may experience disproportionate effects from the adverse consequences of PIM use. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Widespread delivery of AD‐modifying therapies will require a combination of strategies to communicate the value of detection and treatment to patients, integrate PCPs into the detection and diagnosis pathway, and address capacity disparities across the United States. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One-third of hospitalizations were PPHs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The present study addresses the perspectives of Israeli family caregivers and migrant care workers on behavioral problems of persons with dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We used 1387 safety event reports for model development, 989 (71.3%) reports related to situational factors and 119 (8.6%) reports related to active failures. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A longstanding body of public enquiries and research identifies people living with dementia experience systemic inequalities within hospital settings, concluding a focus on improving care cultures is required. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Improving early detection, management, and treatment of comorbid conditions to dementia in residential care could slow down cognitive and functional decline, and increase residents' quality of life. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Enrollment of participants began on April 23, 2023. 5 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is often underdiagnosed, especially at early stages when symptoms are mild, and patients may benefit from new and recently approved anti-amyloid therapies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →