31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The current study investigated several factors that might increase the risk of mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 223,875 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We aimed to synthesise data on risk factors for incident delirium and where possible conduct meta-analysis of these. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 411 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients possessed above risk factors might be high-risk patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 104,572 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides preliminary evidence that falls among community-dwelling older adults are associated with factors such as age, female gender, fear of falling, history of falls, unclear vision, depression, and balance disorders. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggested high prevalence and detrimental impact of DSD in hospitalized older adults, highlighting a need for early identification, prevention, and treatments. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 81 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Studies are heterogeneous in many aspects, including size sample, intervention, and instruments of measures. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,711 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We collected a total of 29 prospective studies for the systematic literature review and meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirteen significant risk factors were identified: age, male gender, lung diseases, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus, severe dementia, angiotensin I-converting enzyme deletion/deletion genotype, bad oral health, malnutrition, Parkinson's disease, and the use of antipsychotic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 21 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The present systematic review critically examines the available scientific literature on risk factors for malnutrition in the older population (aged ≥65 y). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In our large population-based sample, frailty syndrome was a short-term predictor of overall dementia and VaD. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,581 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prevalence of older patients with dementia and oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) is rising and management is poor. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 255 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Use of HAs is associated with delayed diagnosis of AD, dementia, depression, anxiety, and injurious falls among older adults with HL. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 114 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Frailty and depression are important issues affecting older adults. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Poor external validity can result in inadequate treatment decision information. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: high
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
This review of reviews provides a comprehensive and systematic overview of epidemiological evidence from previously conducted research to assess the associations of physical activity with physical and mental health outcomes in older adults. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In patients aged 65 years and older undergoing hip fracture surgery, regional anesthesia without sedation did not significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with general anesthesia. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 476 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Zolpidem use was a strong, independent, and potentially modifiable risk factor for inpatient falls. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,962 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Design prospective cohort study. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 203 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is lack of sound studies examining fall risk factors in cognitively impaired elders. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with an increased risk of long-term cognitive decline in elderly population. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,539 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a technique of noninvasive cortical stimulation allowing significant modification of brain functions. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Forty-two case-control, cohort, and randomized trials were identified and included in the review. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Men are at higher risk of postoperative delirium after hip fracture repair than women and have more postoperative surgical complications. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 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.
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