67/100
Dementia is a growing public health problem for which early detection may be beneficial. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Several results seemed to challenge conventional assumptions of what precipitates NHA among persons with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cognitive impairment is associated with increased use of health services and increased mortality. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,954 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The incidence and prevalence of delirium in hospitals appears to be stable, though publication bias may have masked true changes. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium is the most common manifestation of brain dysfunction in critically ill patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 25,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Studies were significantly heterogeneous in terms of country, outcomes assessed, and the timing of post-ED outcome assessments. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 7,940 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cohort study found that delirium was associated with a 40% acceleration in the slope of cognitive decline out to 72 months following elective surgery. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 560 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Interventions using educational outreach, on-site education given alone or as part of an intervention package and pharmacist medication review may under certain circumstances reduce inappropriate drug use, but the evidence is of low quality. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
DSD is a strong predictor of functional dependence, institutionalization, and mortality in older patients admitted to a rehabilitation setting, suggesting that strategies to detect DSD routinely in practice should be developed and DSD should be included in prognostic models of health care. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,642 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results from our meta-analysis suggest that the incidence of falls of older adults living in nursing homes is high, and the risk factors for falls are various. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A mortality risk score derived from MDS data predicted six-month survival in advanced dementia with moderate accuracy. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 22,405 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
NHs appear to provide less-aggressive end-of-life care to decedents with dementia than to those without. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,261,726 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results demonstrate delirium is a significant marker of mortality among seniors in the ED, and mortality risk is most salient in the first 3 months following an ED visit. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Real-world deprescribing patterns of antihypertensives among NH residents with HTN and LLE/AD appear to reflect variation in recommendations for HTN treatment intensity and individualization of patient care in a population with potential overtreatment. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 10,574 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Later GOCDs were associated with greater risk of aggressive interventions and death as an inpatient and greater odds of ICU admission. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 197 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
67/100
Deintensification of treatment regimens occurred in less than one-half of potentially overtreated Veterans and was more strongly associated with low HbA1c values and use of medications with high risk for hypoglycemia, rather than other resident characteristics. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,056 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
We found low intra-individual variability, robust to various factors, appropriate to capture individual changes in AD BBMs, while moderate inter-individual variability may give rise to caution in diagnostic contexts. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27 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 31,380 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.
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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 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