There is a need for a standardized screening instrument which incorporates daily observations of nursing-home staff. 2 key findings →
Participants: 81 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A new scale, the GBS-scale, is constructed for rating dementia syndromes. 1 key finding →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Residents in memory-care assisted living had a lower adjusted risk of hospitalization (risk difference = -1.8 percentage points [P = .014], hazard ratio = 0.93 [0.87-1.00]), a lower risk of nursing-home admission (risk difference = -2.2 percentage points [P < .001], hazard ratio = 0.87 [-.79-0.95]), and a lower risk of a long-term nursing home admission (risk difference = -1.1 percentage points [P < .001], hazard ratio = 0.71 [0.57-0.88]). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Competition from another NH-based SCU was associated with the presence of an SCU in a NH [adjusted odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-6.6] but there were no associations with other measures. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
45/100
ROC analysis revealed a better score for those areas found under the curve for the CSDD-as against the DSM-IV criteria (0.96). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Urinary and fecal incontinence are comorbid conditions affecting over 50% of nursing home residents. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All four interventions cost less and are more effective (i.e., cost savings) than usual care from a societal perspective. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study reveals a critical disconnect between moderate dementia knowledge and the application of this knowledge into perceived clinical competence. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
44/100
Multiple challenges were encountered in creating a sampling framework and contacting, recruiting and retaining care homes in the PACE study. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The majority of participants were women (63%), and large number of them used technological devices such as a smartphone (91%) or computer (81%). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prevalence rates of neuropsychiatric symptoms in Dutch nursing home patients with dementia residing in SCUs are high, especially agitation and apathy. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Alzheimer's disease and other dementias are expected to affect millions of individuals in the coming decades, placing a growing burden on healthcare systems, families, and caregivers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article estimates the prevalence and identifies risk factors of resident aggression and abuse in assisted living facilities. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
LGBTQ + older adults have a high likelihood of accessing nursing home care. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older age and comorbid conditions increase risk for severe for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
There were 1673 teleconsultations conducted with 850 unique patients. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
This article describes and illustrates a framework that may be used when assessing the moral basis of everyday issues that can affect residents of assisted living facilities. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although much of the research on service use by older adults with dementia relies on proxy reports by informal caregivers, little research assesses the accuracy of these reports, and that which does exist, does not focus on home care services. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Training gaps in the U.S. dementia care workforce impact patient support. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although the cause and the cure for dementia remain unknown, it is clear that environmental factors can offer relief of cognitive impairment and encourage emotional stability. 1 key finding →
Participants: 23 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
VR immersion training is an effective teaching method to help medical and health professions students develop empathy and is a budding area for library partnerships. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A method for assessing affect states among older people with Alzheimer's disease was developed for use in a study designed to evaluate a special care unit for such residents of a nursing home. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on these findings, various actions are recommended for development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics of assistive and health technologies across Europe. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The socio-economic and health consequences of our ageing population are well documented, with older adults living in long-term care facilities amongst the frailest possessing specific and significant healthcare and social care needs. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nursing leaders have a responsibility to promote and facilitate social engagement and connectedness to mitigate social isolation in long-term care (LTC). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
7 of the 199 studies in this tag, 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 7. The same 7 appear here every time.
- Community Visioning for Innovation in Integrated Dementia Care: Stakeholder Focus Group Outcomes
- The Homestead: Developing a Conceptual Framework through Co-Creation for Innovating Long-Term Dementia Care Environments
- Physical and mental health of homebound older adults: an overlooked population
- Function-Focused Person-Environment Fit for Long-Term Care Residents With Dementia: Impact on Apathy
- Mobility and cognition at admission to the nursing home - a cross-sectional study
- Therapeutic Seal Robot as Biofeedback Medical Device: Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluations of Robot Therapy in Dementia Care
- The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review
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 28,180 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.
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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →