from 9,176 records, we included 23 studies (n = 354,985 participants). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 354,985 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 847 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
More than half (55.65%) of AL residents had a diagnosis of SMI, among them 93.2% had major depression, 28.5% schizophrenia, and 22.2% bipolar disorder. 4 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 289,350 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium was associated with a higher risk of nursing home admission in participants without dementia (SHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14-1.34) and with pre-existing dementia (SHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.38). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 13 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review confirms that clinically significant NPSs are common in NH patients with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,458 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
20% of individuals with newly identified dementia were homebound and this group was more functionally impaired, medically complex, and socioeconomically disadvantaged as compared to the non-homebound. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 939 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 23 892 individuals moving-in to care homes, 20 250 (84.8%) died by 31 May 2020. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 892 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Not only dementia diagnosis but also time spent with the diagnosis was crucial for the use of LTC in the month preceding death, in particular residential care. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,294 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on the psychometric qualities and criteria regarding sensitivity and clinical utility, we conclude that PACSLAC and DOLOPLUS2 are the most appropriate scales currently available. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Validity of studies was graded by two authors independently using a standardised checklist. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
The outcomes of each model of care differ and correspond to the model's focus. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The MDS-ADL Long Form scale detected clinically meaningful change in physical function in a large cohort of long-stay nursing home residents with moderate to severe dementia, supporting its use as a research tool in future studies. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 7,001 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were 11.8 transitions to a nursing home per 100 person-years among older adults who resided in an assisted living facility with a dementia care program, compared with 20.5 transitions to a nursing home per 100 person-years among older adults who resided in an assisted living facility without a dementia care program. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 977 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review shows that communication skills training in dementia care significantly improves the quality of life and wellbeing of people with dementia and increases positive interactions in various care settings. 3 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Residents experienced a statistically significant decline in functional mobility in as soon as 60 days. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Stress was more often reported by care providers who had been working for 1 to 2 years (compared with longer); in addition, those who had been working for 1 to 2 years were more likely to espouse hopeful or person-centered attitudes than those who had been working for a longer period of time. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 2-year rate of infection was 1.20 episodes per 100 resident days, and the hospitalization rate for infection was 0.17 admissions per 100 resident days. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No change was found in the Qualidem total score (range: 0-111) over 2 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More than one third of severely cognitively impaired residents in US nursing homes have feeding tubes. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 186,835 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two hundred ten community-dwelling patients with Alzheimer's disease were examined prospectively by psychiatrists as part of a longitudinal study. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Residents exhibited better QOL than expected. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 120 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
Out of 50,089 LTC residents, 12.1% retained their family physicians post-LTC admission. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results from this study provide information about a group void in the literature pertaining to activity restriction from fear of falling - community-based seniors receiving home care services. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,304 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
57/100
Yet, the association became not significant after controlling for individual physical function. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 199 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were 2427 new residents of assisted living who were matched to 9708 home care recipients [mean (SD) age 85.5 (6.02) years, 72% female]. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,780 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.
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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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