27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Decision-making interventions typically consist of multiple components which aim to establish preferences for future health care. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All 23 were able to articulate their end-of-life wishes very or somewhat coherently during the SPIRIT session; of those, 14 PWDs had moderate dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These data indicate the high symptom burden of persons with dementia in Germany at the end of their lives. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nursing home staff benefits from this training in shared decision-making. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The final cohort included 27 243 nursing home residents with advanced dementia (19 363 [71.1%] women) who died between June 1, 2010, and March 31, 2015, at the median (interquartile range) age of 88 (83-92) years. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia receiving postacute care in HH or SNF experienced similar rates of readmission and mortality across settings. 2 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 977,946 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings of this review provide insight into catalysing the paradigm shift from 'reducing stress' to 'optimising positive experience' in developing caregiving support services for dementia, and may guide future empirical study to explain this unique dimension of caregiving experience. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,862 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although mixed, the results indicate a positive response for the use of internet-based interventions by caregivers. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MBI component significantly improved multiple caregiver outcomes, with reduced depressive symptoms (β = -2.13 [95% CI, -2.85 to -1.38]; P Conclusions and relevance In this clinical trial of informal caregivers of people with dementia, synergistic interaction effects were noted for MBI, which enhanced the benefits of SC and BPM on depression. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 10/66 DRG baseline population-based studies are nearly complete. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The quality and level of evidence supporting each theme varied. 2 key findings →
Participants: 5,539 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effects of 131 randomized controlled trials, published between 2006 and mid-2018, for dementia caregivers with community-dwelling care-recipients. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Treatment with the PARO robot decreased stress and anxiety in the treatment group and resulted in reductions in the use of psychoactive medications and pain medications in elderly clients with dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 61 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The cohort sample included 5058 beneficiaries with dementia (mean [SD] age, 85.5 [8.0] years; 3038 women [60.1%]; 809 [16.0%] non-Hispanic Black, 357 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 3892 non-Hispanic White respondents [76.9%]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,058 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A decision aid about feeding options in advanced dementia reduced decisional conflict for surrogates and increased their knowledge and communication about feeding options with providers. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Family members of persons with advanced dementia may be asked to make complex treatment decisions without having adequate knowledge regarding the risks and benefits. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with dementia are significantly more likely to be disenrolled from hospice following a long enrollment period compared with patients without dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 149,814 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a dearth of good-quality evidence investigating the cancer-dementia prevalence and its implications for successful cancer treatment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review highlights the paucity of high-quality dementia-specific research in this area and recommends key areas for future work, for example, the need for process evaluation to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing interventions. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Policies regarding sustained hospice eligibility should account for the variable and protracted end-of-life trajectory of patients with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,629 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Quality of life of people with advanced dementia living in nursing homes is often suboptimal. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The survival prediction model demonstrated moderate accuracy for predicting mortality at 6 and 12 months before death in elderly patients with dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 37,289 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Little is known about preferred place of death, or the factors associated with achieving this, for people with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 472 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Younger family caregivers caring for clinically unstable patients with severe neuropsychiatric symptoms experienced greater burden without informal paid help. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 377 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2022, we randomly allocated 204 participants (109 [53%] women and 95 [47%] men) to the intervention group and 98 (60 [61%] women and 38 [39%] men) to the control group. 218 (72%) participants at 6 months and 178 (59%) at 12 months provided cost data. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 302 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
10 of the 1,002 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 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 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 →