27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 358 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 118,174 beneficiaries who received an AWV, 27.62% initiated ACP within 4 years compared with 17.46% of nonrecipients (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.84-1.89). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 959,405 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Palliative care was associated with a higher risk of hospitalization in the first 90 days (e.g., hazard ratio (HR) 1.43 at 30 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-1.64), which was driven predominantly by hospitalization with palliative intent, but was no longer significantly different beyond 180 days, compared to not receiving palliative care. [Correction added on 31 January 2026, after first online publication: The preceding sentence has been revised in this version.] 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 209,468 decedents, 95,594 were selected after matching. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
VLAHE residents had fewer hospitalizations and shorter stays (10.5 vs 15.2 days, P = .0004) than comparable NH residents, particularly for acute care. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eighteen members of the public-including patients, carers, and individuals with lived experience of both roles-along with two local board members and one representative from a statutory health and social care body, participated and were actively involved in developing the framework and co-producing outputs through structured small-group discussions. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 358 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Between 2000 and 2024, deaths from stroke, heart disease, and HIV decreased, whereas reported deaths from AD increased 134%. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Pre-post evaluations revealed significant reductions in physical symptoms, psychosocial-spiritual distresses and information insufficiency of patients in the first three months of service. 4 key findings →
Participants: 567 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 6303 hospitalized patients with ADRD, 39.3% had mild dementia, 57.8% moderate, and 2.9% severe. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Findingss: uggested that dementia reshaped the structure and intensity of the shared decision-making process by increasing surrogate engagement and decisional demands, underscoring the importance of early advance care planning and structured support for family caregivers to sustain goal-concordant care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More than 50% of older adults with AD/ADRD visit the emergency department (ED) each year [3, 4] and those who do are seriously ill, have significant healthcare costs (e.g., hospital admissions, repeat ED visits) and mortality [4-6]. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
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
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
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
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
A persistent gap remains between policy ambitions and everyday practice. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Broad barriers identified in the outer setting of the implementation framework include sociocultural values and a lack of supportive policies, guidelines, and financing. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After screening, a total of 48 studies were included in this review. 5 key findings →
Participants: 48 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There are well-documented racial disparities in the provision of end-of-life care and advance care planning (ACP). 5 key findings →
Participants: 580 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
End-of-life topics were discussed in 36% of consultations (in regional hospitals, 53%; in academic settings, 27%), and predominantly during diagnostic consultations (54%). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →