The majority of deaths in the United States occur in the geriatric population. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
29,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We recommend the EOLD-SWC to measure QOC, and the EOLD-CAD and MSSE to measure QOD in populations with dementia and in mixed long term care populations of nursing home or residential care home/assisted living residents, because they performed best in both countries. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Instruments that assess quality when dying differ in several ways and most do not measure a single construct, which is relevant to guiding and evaluating care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The caregiving stressor is associated with considerable psychological vulnerability, sleep disorders, and risk of alterations in the cardiovascular system, which seem to be modulated by caregiving characteristics. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results indicated that patient diagnosis (cancer or dementia) and caregiver appraisals (stressfulness of functional impairment and positive aspects of caregiving) were not predictors on any of our well-being outcomes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
Little is known of the palliative care needs and experiences of older adults. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The most commonly encountered clinical conditions presenting with cognitive failure (CF) are delirium, dementia and amnestic disorders. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Goals The physicians' decision-making process in terminal care is complex: medical, ethical, legal and psychological aspects are all involved, particularly in critical situations. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Challenges in the diagnosis and classification of delirium in people with advanced disease are compounded by the generalized disturbance of central nervous system function that occurs in the seriously ill, often with comorbid illness, including dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The early integration of specialist palliative care has been shown to benefit the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The goals of palliative care address critical issues for individuals with complex and serious illness residing in nursing homes, including pain and symptom management, communication, preparation for death, decisions about treatment preferences, and caregiver support. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Palliative care aims to improve the quality of life of patients and their families affected by life-threatening illness. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
Our results help to elucidate the tasks and roles required of FPs to make integration of a palliative care approach into the care continuum possible. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on current scientific literature, gastrostomy tube (G-tube) placement or other long-term enteral access devices should be withheld in patients with advanced dementia or other near end-of-life conditions. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome with generalized cognitive impairment and disproportionate inattention. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive complaints are common in the geriatric population. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This pilot study examined whether an interactive, computer based decision aid can help patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) engage in effective advance care planning. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The single most common cause of death occurring within the nursing home was Alzheimer's, with most dying appropriately on hospice care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Predictors of patient wishes and influence of family and clinicians are discussed. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aging of the U.S. population has resulted in a large number of persons with multiple, chronic illnesses and gradual functional decline. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aims of this study were to estimate the incidence of acute confusional state (ACS), its predisposing factors and consequences in 111 consecutive patients operated for fractured neck of the femur. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We analyze the relationship between age of survival, morbidity, and disability among centenarians (age 100-104 years), semisupercentenarians (age 105-109 years), and supercentenarians (age 110-119 years). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
The elderly are the most rapidly growing population group in the world. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between 1980 and 1987, the number of hospital discharges with total hip replacement (THR) increased by more than 90%, while total hospital discharges fell by more than 10%. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We found that COVID patients initially experienced substantially longer hospital stays (8.3 vs 4.6 days) and higher 30-day mortality (34% vs 5%) compared to patients without COVID. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From across this tag
10 of the 863 studies in this tag that have a study page, 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.
- Antihypertensive Deprescribing and Functional Status in VA Long‐Term Care Residents With and Without Dementia
- Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Prognosis of Heart Failure in Older Adults
- Delirium predicts 12-month mortality
- Life-sustaining treatment preferences of hemodialysis patients: implications for advance directives
- How old are the elderly?
- Risk factors in falls among the elderly according to extrinsic and intrinsic precipitating causes
- Importance of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in prediction of complications following thoracic surgery in elderly patients
- Anticholinergic effects of medication in elderly patients
- A Systematic Review of Interventions to Change Staff Care Practices in Order to Improve Resident Outcomes in Nursing Homes
- Barriers to advance care planning in cancer, heart failure and dementia patients: a focus group study on general practitioners' views and experiences
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
- Randomised / 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
- Multi-centre 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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.
1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →