32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Delirium screening was performed exclusively in patients aged ≥75 years, accounting for 7.3% of all surgical patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 23,100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 20,660 patients who visited the ER, 1,486 patients who were transported by ambulance were included in this study. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 20,660 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the patients, 82.2% were receiving at least one dizziness-associated medication and 71.2% at least one hypotension-associated medication. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 210 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 2889 patients with delirium (mean age 85 years; 54.7% female), 59.8% were triaged at SETS 1–2 (high priority) and 40.2% at SETS 3–4 (low priority). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,889 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In contrast, patients with LB pathology alone, in the absence of AD biomarker positivity, had less overall cognitive impairment but more focal dysexecutive and visuospatial deficits. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 85 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In total, 945 were included patients, and 28.1% (n = 266) had dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 266 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest that possible sarcopenia is a significant and independent predictor of delirium in older patients with acute stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 543 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The optimized XGBoost model demonstrated superior performance, achieving an AUC of 0.85. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium is a common and serious clinical condition that is associated with several adverse, and sometimes permanent outcomes. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 3D-CAM-S severity scores correlated with DRS, delirium duration, and biomarkers of delirium. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 177 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mean age was 83.5 years (delirium 78.7 vs non-delirium 88.4); 13/20 were female; 17/20 had premorbid cognitive decline/impairment or dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 24,043 patients were included, with 2,662 (11.07%) in the ND group. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 24,043 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Within 365 days, 5.2% (N = 10709) of individuals had a delirium or dementia-related hospitalization. 5 key findings →
Participants: 207,343 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This was a retrospective analysis using nationally representative UK general practice population between 1998 and 2018, from electronic health records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD, GOLD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,219,732 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 574 older adults, 187 (33%) were admitted. 5 key findings →
Participants: 574 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
Fifty-three experts participated (eight completed all rounds). 5 key findings →
Participants: 32 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
Postoperative delirium (POD) is often under-recognized in clinical practice. 3 key findings →
Participants: 143 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
BackgroundA decline in driving skills is well documented in people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study 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
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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated