29,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
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
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
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
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
A mortality risk score derived from MDS data predicted six-month survival in advanced dementia with moderate accuracy. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 22,405 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hospice enrollment correlates with reduced Medicare expenditures among younger decedents with cancer but increased expenditures among decedents without cancer and those older than 84 years of age. 2 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 245 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
NHs appear to provide less-aggressive end-of-life care to decedents with dementia than to those without. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,261,726 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Extrapolating results to the US population, we estimate that annually nearly a million individuals who are likely eligible for hospice die without its services. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,209 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most families chose comfort as the primary GOC. 4 key findings →
Participants: 302 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results demonstrate delirium is a significant marker of mortality among seniors in the ED, and mortality risk is most salient in the first 3 months following an ED visit. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We conducted a systematic review of the use of quality of life (QoL) measures as outcome in pharmacological and nonpharmacologic intervention trials in patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment or dementia, and their proxies. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Real-world deprescribing patterns of antihypertensives among NH residents with HTN and LLE/AD appear to reflect variation in recommendations for HTN treatment intensity and individualization of patient care in a population with potential overtreatment. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 10,574 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Later GOCDs were associated with greater risk of aggressive interventions and death as an inpatient and greater odds of ICU admission. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 197 Evidence: moderate
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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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.
1,037 records (3.5% 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 →