FCC facilitates a palliative approach to care. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
69/100
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
62/100
Discussing future care is difficult due to uncertainties about the future and the decisional capacities of people with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study revealed a higher prevalence of treatment preference discussions and surrogate appointments in the two northern compared to the two southern European countries. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,396 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A subgroup of patients with Alzheimer's disease was identified and compared to patients with other and unspecified types of dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 4,624 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified 101 deaths of residents with dementia in 69 nursing homes (58% response rate). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Specialist palliative care is not initiated in almost half of the people for whom it could be beneficial, most frequently because physicians deem regular caregivers to be sufficiently skilled in addressing palliative care needs. 1 key finding →
Participants: 6,188 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The preferences of end-of-life issues differed greatly between dementia patients and their caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with DLB (n = 50) died 3.24 ± 1.81 years after diagnosis, typically of disease-related complications. 5 key findings →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Persons with dementia are at high risk for loss of decision-making ability due to increased cognitive decline as the disease progresses. 1 key finding →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The significant challenges of providing good end of life care for people with dementia requires that different forms of expertise should be recognised and used; including the skills and knowledge of care assistants. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results of our study contribute to a better understanding of the factors hindering GPs in initiating ACP. 2 key findings →
Participants: 36 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In interviews PWD were able to indicate their treatment preferences across all three scenarios. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This qualitative evaluation of ACP in early dementia has encouragingly positive results which support the wider application of the intervention in memory services and community mental health teams. 2 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We have enrolled 29 clinicians and 53 FCPs and aim to have 24 clinicians matched with 96 FCPs (N = 120) to complete the intervention. 3 key findings →
Participants: 120 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Timeliness and consistency of relationship is crucial to building rapport and trust in the service's ability to help at post-bereavement as well as a focus on the specific rather than the generic needs of the bereaved. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Key mechanisms of action were: improved observation and awareness of residents, collaborative assessment, comprehensive 'picture of the person', systematic record keeping, improved review and monitoring, care planning and changes to care provision, and facilitated multi-agency communication. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Study results emphasize the need for improved EOL counseling in DLB, recognition of EOL symptoms, earlier hospice involvement, tailoring EOL care to DLB-specific needs, and clinician-family communication. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A persistent gap remains between policy ambitions and everyday practice. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After screening, a total of 48 studies were included in this review. 5 key findings →
Participants: 48 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 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.
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 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 →