In 78 participants, discomfort levels were monitored during palliative sedation. 5 key findings →
Participants: 78 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In adjusted analyses, the rate of first ACP conversation for persons with organ failure was the lowest (IRR 0.70 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.73)). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Nursing home residents dying with advanced dementia are not perceived as having a terminal condition, and most do not receive optimal palliative care. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,609 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To evaluate the impact hospice enrollment has on the terminal care of patients with dementia and describe the symptom burden these patients experience, caregivers of dementia decedents were assessed in a mortality follow-back survey. 5 key findings →
Participants: 135 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe remain unchanged since 2009. 1 key finding →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 5406 nursing home residents with advanced dementia, 2911 (53.9%) received at least 1 medication with questionable benefit (range, 44.7% in the Mid-Atlantic census region to 65.0% in the West South Central census region). 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional 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
Dementia is a leading cause of death in the USA. 3 key findings →
Participants: 8,686 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the elderly, prestroke dementia is a powerful independent predictor of in-hospital mortality after acute reperfusion therapy for stroke. 2 key findings →
Participants: 153 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
This research, a descriptive qualitative analysis of self-defined serious illness goals, expands the knowledge of what goals are important beyond the physical-making existing disease-specific guidelines more holistic. 5 key findings →
Participants: 160 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Optimal timing of ACP discussions should be determined by the readiness of the patient and family carer to face end of life. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mount Carmel Health has developed an APCS and APCU integrated into the mainstream of each of its hospitals, providing an opportunity for a more appropriate focus on end-of-life issues for patients with poor prognoses, intense medical needs, and complex family issues. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,712 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 3123 decedents, 465 (14.9%) had a primary hospice diagnosis of dementia and 943 (30.2%) had comorbid dementia and died of another illness. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, symptoms in the last week and month of life did not vary by diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Participants: 286 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
50/100
Absence of functional surrogate decision-makers is a major barrier to research and clinical decision-making for hospitalized patients with advanced dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 68 Evidence: high
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
The application of medical technology to prolong life at the expense of quality of life is widely debated in end-of-life care. 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,923 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of the study population, 97% had a limited care plan (ACP I) documented. 5 key findings →
Participants: 367 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean concordance between patient wishes and the clinical team decisions was significantly higher post-intervention (post = 91.9%, 95% CI = 87.8, 96.1, vs. pre = 52.4%, 95% CI = 41.9, 62.9; p <0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Less than half of the nursing home residents (39.2%) had advance directives and most (96.4%) had been completed by family surrogates. 5 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
The authors plan to reevaluate ACP statistics in the same office following a future intervention. 2 key findings →
Participants: 98 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study cohort comprised patients with a mean age of 87.2 ± 7.2 years (n = 100), 63% of whom had lived in nursing homes. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Seriously ill older adults, including those living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), often receive disease-focused rehabilitative care in skilled nursing facilities (SNF) with little consideration for their palliative care (PC) needs. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 52 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →