28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Our random 20% sample included 848,303 fee-for-service Medicare decedents (mean age, 82.3 years; 57.9% female, 88.1% white). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 270,202 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with the reference standard for diagnosing delirium, 2 study nurses using the CAM-ICU had sensitivities of 100% and 93%, specificities of 98% and 100%, and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 111 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As with incidences, HRs were higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 (eg, those admitted to ITU compared with those who were not: 1·58, 1·50-1·67, for any diagnosis; 2·87, 2·45-3·35, for any first diagnosis). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 379 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This analysis of 2-year retrospective cohort studies of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 showed that the increased incidence of mood and anxiety disorders was transient, with no overall excess of these diagnoses compared with other respiratory infections. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 47 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among older Medicare beneficiaries, incident AF is common and has remained relatively stable for more than a decade. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 433,123 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There are commonalities in the prevalence of problems across cancer and non-cancer patients, highlighting the need for palliative care to be provided irrespective of diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 57 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
If recent mortality trends continue, 160,000 more people in England and Wales will need palliative care by 2040. 2 key findings →
Participants: 469,305 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among elderly people hospitalization of a spouse is associated with an increased risk of death, and the effect of the illness of a spouse varies among diagnoses. 4 key findings →
Participants: 518,240 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 4AT is a new test for rapid screening of delirium in routine clinical practice. 1 key finding →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were 140,055 subjects in the 1998-1999 cohort and 146,328 in the 1999-2000 cohort, of which 55.5 percent and 59.7 percent, respectively, were immunized. 4 key findings →
Participants: 140,055 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 57 753 decedents, approximately half of the patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty received palliative care consultations (adjusted proportions, 50.4%, 46.7%, and 43.7%, respectively) vs 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia (P Conclusions and relevance Family-reported quality of end-of-life care was significantly better for patients with cancer and those with dementia than for patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty, largely owing to higher rates of palliative care consultation and do-not-resuscitate orders and fewer deaths in the intensive care unit among patients with cancer and those with dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Strengths of the study are that the subjects were randomly selected from a defined population, the majority of the subjects were examined in person, and MCI was defined using published criteria. 1 key finding →
Participants: 2,719 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The DRS-R-98, a 16-item clinician-rated scale with 13 severity items and 3 diagnostic items, was validated against the Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), and Delirium Rating Scale (DRS) among five diagnostic groups (N=68): delirium, dementia, depression, schizophrenia, and other. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Using DSM-IV criteria, 55 of 280 patients (19.6%) had delirium versus 17.6% using the CAM. 1 key finding →
Participants: 280 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium occurred in 239 (9%) of 2721 observations or 131 (16%) of 797 patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 797 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study suggests that the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist can easily be applied by a clinician or a nurse in a busy critical care setting to screen all patients even when communication is compromised. 3 key findings →
Participants: 93 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Twenty-five patients (9.1%) died during the follow-up period (median [interquartile range], 13.3 [11.5-16.1] months), including 4 in-hospital deaths after surgery. 2 key findings →
Participants: 275 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Most patients who enter hospice care do so late in the course of their terminal illnesses. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Executive dysfunction was found to be associated with relapse and recurrence of geriatric major depression and with residual depressive symptoms. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A chart-based instrument for delirium, which should be useful for patient safety and quality-improvement programs in older persons, was validated. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Altered consciousness has been regarded as a core feature of delirium; the fact that consciousness itself should be physiologically disrupted due to acute illness attests to its clinical urgency. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older patients account for up to a quarter of all emergency department (ED) visits. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among people with dementia, predicted 1-year mortality was higher among those with hip fracture (35.4%) versus those without hip fracture (14.8%), with similar patterns for pneumonia (49.6% vs. 13.0%). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) exists in both short and long forms. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Twenty-six percent of eligible ED users contacted elected for study enrollment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 160 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. 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →