from 9,176 records, we included 23 studies (n = 354,985 participants). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 354,985 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Delirium was associated with a higher risk of nursing home admission in participants without dementia (SHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14-1.34) and with pre-existing dementia (SHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.38). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 13 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Validity of studies was graded by two authors independently using a standardised checklist. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results from this study provide information about a group void in the literature pertaining to activity restriction from fear of falling - community-based seniors receiving home care services. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,304 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
54/100
In-hospital death among nursing home residents with dementia has been associated with poorer quality of end-of-life care. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 240,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
of 74,486 decedents (60.5% women; mean age 87.1 years (standard deviation: 7.1)), 82.6% had at least one ED visit in their last year of life. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
25 (21.6%) of the 116 patients living at home were admitted to residential or nursing home care during the follow-up year. 3 key findings →
Participants: 124 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
44/100
Greater spend on social care (including availability of care home places) was associated with reduced spend in health care, with shorter length of hospital stay and decrease in readmissions. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The costs of illness can be huge; medical bankruptcy is a significant problem in the United States [9]. 1 key finding →
Participants: 27,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
over 90% of the homes had high quality scores on at least two measures. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As a result, the similarities of older people in residential care to those in nursing care homes greatly outweigh the differences and arguably strengthen the case for RN input to all care home residents. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Future direction of this work focuses on system wide improvements to promote multi-organisational interdisciplinary healthcare and social services professionals work in care homes. 2 key findings →
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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