32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The mean age of the 402 study residents was 86.7 years [range, 67-102 years]; 350 were white (87.1%) and 323 were female (80.3%), with DNH directives that by 6 months did not differ between arms (63% in both arms; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.69-1.69). 1 key finding →
Participants: 212 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Better alignment between preferences for comfort-focused care and advance directives is needed in advanced dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 328 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Specialty palliative care consultation for hospitalized patients with late-stage dementia is feasible and promising to improve decision-making and some treatment outcomes. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Surgical repair of a hip fracture was associated with lower mortality among NH residents with advanced dementia and should be considered together with the residents' goals of care in management decisions. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,441 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
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
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
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
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
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
Palliative care is related to reduced life-sustaining treatments for patients with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,996 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events
Last updated