Nursing home staff benefits from this training in shared decision-making. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
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.
Future studies are needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of using antibiotics for patients during EOL care in diverse patient populations. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The final cohort included 27 243 nursing home residents with advanced dementia (19 363 [71.1%] women) who died between June 1, 2010, and March 31, 2015, at the median (interquartile range) age of 88 (83-92) years. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia receiving postacute care in HH or SNF experienced similar rates of readmission and mortality across settings. 2 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 977,946 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is small but significant increase in access to specialist palliative care services in Western Australia, specifically in patients dying with non-cancer conditions. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,928 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As outlined in the original cohort profile,1 The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA) is a prospective cohort study designed to provide an evidence base for addressing the challenges and opportunities associated with population ageing in Ireland. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,525 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 488 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Further studies are needed to identify modifiable risk factors for FI detection and its symptom management in this patient population. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,314 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
70/100
Three ACP interventions focused on mild dementia and seven on advanced dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Family members of persons with advanced dementia may be asked to make complex treatment decisions without having adequate knowledge regarding the risks and benefits. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with dementia are significantly more likely to be disenrolled from hospice following a long enrollment period compared with patients without dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 149,814 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a dearth of good-quality evidence investigating the cancer-dementia prevalence and its implications for successful cancer treatment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were 1 561 940 patients, including 17 963 hospitalized for ruptured AAA, 304 980 for AMI, 1 181 648 for stroke, 19 675 for aortic dissection, and 37 674 for SAH. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 940 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
69/100
The review highlights the paucity of high-quality dementia-specific research in this area and recommends key areas for future work, for example, the need for process evaluation to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing interventions. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Policies regarding sustained hospice eligibility should account for the variable and protracted end-of-life trajectory of patients with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,629 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
Little is known about preferred place of death, or the factors associated with achieving this, for people with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 472 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
69/100
Younger family caregivers caring for clinically unstable patients with severe neuropsychiatric symptoms experienced greater burden without informal paid help. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 377 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In 46 634 participants (51.7% female; mean [SD] age at death, 82.4 [9.0] years), SBPs and DBPs peaked 18 to 14 years before death and then decreased progressively. 2 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 634 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence suggests that people living with cognitive impairment value opportunities to be involved in everyday decision-making about their care. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Four key themes were identified in this review: goals of care and end-of-life conversations, symptom management, emergency room visits, and prescribing behavior. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ACP is complex, and trial characteristics were heterogeneous. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
End-of-life care for patients with dementia was extremely demanding of family caregivers. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventeen randomized clinical trials tested decision tools in serious illness. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 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 →