30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Our evaluation study suggests that prophylactic treatment with low dose haloperidol in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium probably has beneficial effects. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 299 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It is believed that glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3) hyperphosphorylates tau protein in progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 146 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among patients with agitated delirium receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, the addition of dexmedetomidine to standard care compared with standard care alone (placebo) resulted in more ventilator-free hours at 7 days. 5 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Quality of the reporting of trials varied. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,353 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use of light propofol sedation decreased the prevalence of postoperative delirium by 50% compared with deep sedation. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 114 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The meta-analysis suggests a consistent moderate association between ADL and EF, supporting the growing evidence for a link between ADL and executive dysfunction in early dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,663 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Studies are heterogeneous in many aspects, including size sample, intervention, and instruments of measures. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,711 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the prevalence of OD is high in different populations and its trend has been increasing in recent years. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The evidence base on tools for detection of delirium superimposed on dementia is limited, although some existing tools show promise. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,569 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Faster alleviation of delirium and improved cognition justify good, comprehensive geriatric care for these patients although treatment produced no significant improvements in hard endpoints of prognosis. 4 key findings →
Participants: 87 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We collected a total of 29 prospective studies for the systematic literature review and meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this 10-week, double-blind, fixed-dose study, elderly institutionalized patients with dementia and agitation were randomized (3:3:2) to quetiapine 200mg/day, 100mg/day, or placebo. 2 key findings →
Participants: 117 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
15 care sites with 289 residents were randomly assigned. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multifactorial intervention was not effective in preventing falls in older people with cognitive impairment and dementia presenting to the accident and emergency department after a fall. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Treatment of acutely sick, frail, older patients in a GEMU substantially reduced mortality. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 127 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to test the impact of Function-Focused Care for the Cognitively Impaired Intervention on nursing home residents with dementia and the nursing assistants who care for them. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 103 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The risk of dementia or MCI at follow-up is almost doubled in elderly hip surgery patients with postoperative delirium compared with at-risk patients without delirium. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 112 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirteen significant risk factors were identified: age, male gender, lung diseases, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus, severe dementia, angiotensin I-converting enzyme deletion/deletion genotype, bad oral health, malnutrition, Parkinson's disease, and the use of antipsychotic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 21 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Studies of automobile accident frequency among drivers with AD have yielded conflicting results about the risk of accidents. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The optimal management of post-stroke cognitive impairment remains controversial. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Main results Eighteen studies were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A deep learning algorithm based on patient demographic information and longitudinal clinical notes appeared to show promising results in predicting mortality among patients with dementia in different time frames. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
21% (7065) of the cohort had a record of mental illness at study entry, 25% (8300) had a record of challenging behaviour, and 49% (16,242) had a record of prescription of psychotropic drugs. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33,016 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review included 24 studies involving 2979 participants (1717 with dysphagia and 1262 controls). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 24 Evidence: high
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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