27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Of 3883 older adults receiving a first palliative care consultation from this organization, 22% (855) had a dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance care planning (ACP) in palliative care is essential for patient autonomy and quality of dying. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is characterised by memory loss, behavioural changes and decline of cognitive, social and physical functions and is a life-limiting condition. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia usually occurs as a result of brain disease and, while it is usually chronic or progressive in nature, it has not traditionally been conceptualised as a terminal or life-limiting syndrome. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty respondents identified themselves as music therapists currently working with clients receiving PEOLC. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Interviews with 50 Dutch physicians and 47 American physicians and 3 nurse practitioners generated three themes of ethical considerations: (1) Respecting the autonomy of the person with dementia, (2) Rationality as the basis for decisions and subsequent actions, and (3) Minimizing burden and suffering. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proportion of palliative utilization in cancer deaths started at 21.7% in 2010 and increased to 63.2% by 2020 with the beta coefficient of 0.09 (95% CI: 0.09-0.09). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants actively contemplated ACP following their parents' death, referring to their end-of-life caregiving experiences as guideposts for issues to anticipate and opportunities to enhance receipt of healthcare during serious illness or incapacitation. 5 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 200 physicians participated in the study. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 200 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 85 patients were enrolled; 28 (32.9%) were classified as NECPAL-positive and 57 (67.1%) as NECPAL-negative. 5 key findings →
Participants: 85 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants sought to feel secure by following recommended practices, manage uncertainty, avoid crises, share burdens within families, and avoid poor end-of-life experiences. 5 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The item-bank included 180 symptoms, most of which focus group nurses (n = 17) identified as occurring in advanced dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Identifying strategies to enhance patient engagement and to control healthcare costs promotes a responsive and efficient healthcare system. 4 key findings →
Participants: 401 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Misconceptions were common: 38% of participants equated ACP exclusively with decisions to forgo active treatment, and many conflated ACP with current rather than future-oriented care planning. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
172 patients with symptomatic prion disease were identified. 165 (94.8%) patients experienced ≥1 symptom/sign likely to benefit from palliative care, yet only 113 (65.7%) patients accessed palliative care resources during the illness course (hospice care: 39.7%; palliative care consultation: 14.9% inpatient, 6.9% outpatient; both: 3.4%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 172 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All patients had a Needs Near the End-of-Life Care Screening (NEST-13) score ≥30, indicating a high level of EOL care need. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 301 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 2,435,099 weighted hospitalizations, palliative care documentation was present in 65,675 (2.70%), increasing from 2.13% in 2016 to 3.43% in 2022. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Carers' knowledge about dementia was moderate overall, with higher scores among those with greater education and previous dementia exposure. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ACP is linked to lower EOL spending and a shift from inpatient to outpatient ADRD care; structured ACP delivery should be considered. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Providing end-of-life care for patients with COPD, dementia, and cancer involves a focus on symptom management, integration of palliative care, and respecting patient preferences, while engaging families in the care process. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Appendix B. Coding tree of main categories and specific sub categories describing factors influencing readiness for advance care planning among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Appendix A. Interview guides on experiences with advance care planning, factors influencing readiness for advance care planning, and the use of conversation aids among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The intervention area consisted of two hospitals and the 21 nursing homes (NHs) around them compared with another, geographically separate, hospital and the 13 homes around it. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence that dying occurs as a natural, final event in the wholeness of human life is culturally, artistically, and scientifically persuasive. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 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.
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 →