27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The 9 participants described the importance of understanding the experiences of PLWDs in order to provide high-quality dementia care and to deliver such care with the residents and their preferences as the focus. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified the centrality of "being out in the world and negotiating connections," which characterizes residents' experiences with the outside world as a process of "working out" engagement with nature, others, and the community. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia education for healthcare providers has gained growing attention in China. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We conducted a participatory research project to address this important area of care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
About 40 000 individuals depend on assisted living in long-term care facilities in Norway. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Assisted living provides housing and long-term care services to more than 811,000 older adults in the United States daily and is regulated by the states. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total, 17 papers were included in the final review. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants comprised of registered nurses (N = 4), care assistants (N = 8), bereaved relatives (N = 7), and domiciliary staff (N = 3). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A qualitative study was conducted to examine the experiences of informal caregivers of persons with dementia pertaining interprofessional collaboration with and among healthcare professionals in home care (HC), nursing homes and during home to nursing home transitions in palliative care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found the fundamental purpose of occupation is to support the person living with dementia to feel they are living a meaningful and fulfilling life. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prior research suggests that a scarcity of dementia specialists could hamper access to disease-modifying Alzheimer's treatments. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We had 38,777 and 40,277 hits for depression and dementia, respectively, in long-term care facilities or nursing homes. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia-friendly designs are important in residential care homes but an aspect that remains neglected is the potential role of door designs in promoting wayfinding. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of this study was to use routinely collected resident assessment data from a single site to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on cognition, physical function and behavioral symptoms of residents with dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It is estimated that 5.4 million Americans have some form of dementia and these numbers are expected to rise in the coming decades, leading to an unprecedented demand for memory care housing and services. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The project Aging in Place applies a novel approach to investigate how social care services in Sweden are adapted to preferences and needs of older persons living at home with dementia (including their partners). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of the 8688 individuals in the Medicare Advantage population with a dementia diagnosis, 1061 (12.2%) received an antipsychotic medication. 4 key findings →
Participants: 8,688 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reintroduced Alzheimer's disease and related dementias to its risk-adjustment payment model for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Nursing homes generally met three quarters of the pre-defined criteria for advance care planning policy. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The study population of 99,774 individuals had a mean age of 71.0 years and was 49.1% female, 73.9% White, and 17.8% Black, with 62.0% living in an urban setting. 5 key findings →
Participants: 99,774 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Policy implementation was associated with a significant decrease in patient out-of-pocket cost. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Claims-based dementia algorithms have not been evaluated in the Medicare Advantage (MA) population, a critical gap given the rapid growth of MA and concerns about data completeness. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,058 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over half of participants (54%) received SFU as initial second-line ADM, 14% received BI, and 32% received another ADM. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
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 →