Twenty-three studies from 12 countries were included (8 cluster RCTs, 9 individual RCTs, 6 non-randomized trials). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review 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.
Nineteen articles involving 142,772 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 142,772 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-four reviews were included, published between 2009 and 2023. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Physician-delivered palliative care. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Descriptive statistics characterizing physician-delivered palliative care. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18,452 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An important goal of advance care planning (ACP) is ensuring that patients receive care concordant with their preferences. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We included 17098 records, 4139 from deceased individuals (mean age 81) and 12959 from living individuals (mean age 79). 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 17,098 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 40,074 inpatient encounters (median age 72 years [IQR 62-82], 46.9% male, 22.7% Black, 4.6% Hispanic), the most common serious illness was heart failure (66.0%), followed by COPD (39.3%), kidney failure (12.4%), cancer (12.3%), and dementia (11.6%). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
52/100
Participants included 202 physicians and three nurse specialists who assumed similar medical responsibilities. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 202 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cohort study examines the use of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine among older adults with dementia after admission into hospice care despite the medications’ limited clinical benefit following enrollment into hospice. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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
The DEDICATED approach was implemented across 28 wards in three healthcare organizations. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
On average, surveyed caregivers (n = 431) were 78.3 years, had 16 years of education, and were mainly White (88.5%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 431 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Three cohorts of interdisciplinary scholars (N = 53) have started and two have completed DEM-PCCT. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 53 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria after critical appraisal. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
48/100
Among 52 participants recruited, 27 were former caregivers, 16 were current caregivers, and nine were persons with dementia; experiences reflected Alzheimer's (n = 18), sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob (n = 12), Lewy body (n = 7), and other dementias (n = 15). 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
"Rapid-type" caregivers (n = 12) had a median age of 59 (range 45-73) years; 6 were female, and 9 were spouses. 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundLet's Talk Tech (LTT) is a self-administered web intervention for people with memory loss and their care partners that supports decision-making about digital health technologies. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In long-term care residents, ADL scores worsened by a mean of 0.29 points (95%CI = 0.27, 0.31) per 3 months and antihypertensive deprescribing did not impact this worsening (difference between groups -0.04 points every 3 months, 95%CI = -0.15, 0.06). 5 key findings →
Participants: 12,238 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The reduction of hospital deaths is a policy priority in most developed countries. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified several key themes: surrogates more often chose comfort care for care recipients with dementia, particularly at advanced stages. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,931 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Living with dementia requires decision making about numerous topics including daily activities and advance care planning (ACP). 1 key finding →
Design: umbrella review Participants: 21 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
We included 150 patients; 67.3% met criteria for PC need. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 150 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 9872 individuals, 3563 (36%) died within 6 months. 5 key findings →
Participants: 9,872 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 →