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
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This statistical prediction is recommended for use in combination with clinical judgment to certify DAT patients for Medicare hospice coverage. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite the growing number of persons with advanced dementia, and the need to improve their end-of-life care, few studies have addressed this important topic. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results suggest that management of patients with advanced DAT on a DSCU using a palliative care philosophy may result in less patient discomfort and lower costs than management on a TLTC. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A program that limits the extent of medical treatment in patients with advanced dementia of the Alzheimer type was initiated on an intermediate medical ward. 1 key finding →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fever episodes in 104 institutionalized patients with Alzheimer's disease were prospectively evaluated to determine the impact of antibiotic treatment on fever outcomes. 3 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Regardless of the dementia stage, many nursing home residents develop serious clinical complications and symptoms in the last phase of life, posing major challenges to the provision of optimum end-of-life care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
38/100
The lack of valid and reliable instruments designed to measure the experiences of older persons with advanced dementia and those of their health care proxies has limited palliative care research for this condition. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Systematic evaluation of end-of-life care in dementia has been hampered by a lack of instruments to specifically address those issues that are unique for persons who are dying with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
End-of-life care for persons with dementia in different care settings was retrospectively surveyed. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of this literature review was to assess the current state of affairs in end-of-life care for persons with dementia, to identify barriers to the provision of high-quality care, and to describe exemplary programs that have discovered ways to overcome these barriers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
Educating families and professionals about palliative care is important as many professionals and non-professionals believe that this approach intends to hasten death, instead of affirming life and regarding dying as a normal process. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
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
- 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 28,580 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.
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 28,580 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 →