30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A comprehensive outcome monitoring system to monitor the quality and safety of care and variation for HCP recipients was developed. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 68 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
length of stay, need for a higher level of care, and mortality after discharge in patients with and without delirium. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
About 12% of caregivers (2.8 million) were socially isolated and 27% (6.3 million) were lonely. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,174 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 266 older adults with hypertension were surveyed in this study, of whom 108 reported having fallen once or more in the past year. 5 key findings →
Participants: 266 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To the Editor: The standardized management of pain–agitation–delirium (PAD) represents a fundamental component of clinical practice in intensive care units (ICUs).[1] Evidence-based analgesia and sedation strategies not only alleviate patients’ physiological discomfort and psychological distress, but also significantly reduce mechanical ventilation duration, improve long-term prognosis, and optimize healthcare resource allocation.[1,2] Equally crucial is delirium management, as evidenced by studies demonstrating that delirium duration independently predicts mortality risk, hospital stay length, healthcare expenditures, and acquired dementia incidence.[3] Although existing studies have explored PAD management practices, most rely on clinicians’ subjective recall that may distort objective clinical realities and fail to reflect distinctive characteristics.[4] Therefore, this nationwide multicenter cross-sectional study, initiated by the Critical Care Analgesia and Sedation Quality Control Subspecialty Group under the China National Center for Medical Quality Control in Critical Care Medicine, aims to investigate the current status of PAD management in China. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,627 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From the database searches, 4796 records were identified. 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Additionally, it is unknown whether the benefits of this cap would vary between Medicare patients with type 1 versus type 2 diabetes. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,227,229 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All low-income countries and 59% of the middle-income countries in our sample were found to have far fewer professionals than they need to deliver a core set of mental health interventions. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It was hypothesized that race or ethnicity, social support, and functional status are independently associated with treatment intensity and controlling for regional characteristics, and that individual characteristics account for a substantial proportion of expenditure variation. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregiving intensity is related to health for non-Latino White CGs and African American dementia CGs. 1 key finding →
Participants: 667 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Up to 7 August 2020, there were 29,542 (95% CI 25,176 to 33,908) excess deaths in all care homes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants: 83 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were 75 subjects in the pilot. The patients were aged 65 (56-73.5) years, and 39% (29/75) resided in rural areas. 5 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 120 people with delirium participated [median age 86.3, range 70-99, 67 (55.8%) female and 55 (45.8%) with dementia]. 5 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 18 614 ORCHARD-EPR patients (mean/SD age = 82.9/7.4 years, dementia = 20%), certain delirium (delirium = yes or ICD-10 delirium code) was present in 3077/18 614 (17%,95%CI 16%-17%) of whom 1199/3077 (39%) had dementia, and uncertain delirium (delirium = uncertain and no ICD-10 code) in 2007 (11%,10%-11%) of whom 773/2007 (39%) had dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 731 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 327 patients were included in this study. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 327 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a sample of 2,599 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age 78.4 years, 52.9% female, 81.8% White), we identified a total of 5,677 hospitalization claims. 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,677 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A case-control GWAS was performed in the UK Biobank to identify genetic variants associated with postoperative delirium, adjusted for age, sex, genetic chip, and the first 10 principal components. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eighteen members of the public-including patients, carers, and individuals with lived experience of both roles-along with two local board members and one representative from a statutory health and social care body, participated and were actively involved in developing the framework and co-producing outputs through structured small-group discussions. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In long-term care residents, ADL scores worsened by a mean of 0.29 points (95%CI = 0.27, 0.31) per 3 months and antihypertensive deprescribing did not impact this worsening (difference between groups -0.04 points every 3 months, 95%CI = -0.15, 0.06). 5 key findings →
Participants: 12,238 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 358 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The reduction of hospital deaths is a policy priority in most developed countries. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results in this study demonstrated that the Zarit Burden Interview is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the burden of caregivers of PWD in Singapore. 2 key findings →
Participants: 149 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In contrast to newborns, who spend 16-20 h in sleep each day, adults need only about sleep daily. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The observed misalignment of opinion between end users and developers on desirable design features of companion robots demonstrates the need for user-centred design during development. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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.
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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