Residents experienced a statistically significant decline in functional mobility in as soon as 60 days. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The unadjusted mortality rates were 13.4% in general RC/AL and 15.8% in memory-care RC/AL with an adjusted difference of 1.3 percentage points higher mortality among memory-care RC/AL residents (p = 0.04). 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 364 studies were identified using our search strategy on Ovid, 278 records were screened, and 20 studies were included in this review. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 364 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A total of 1780 major operations (representing 9 556 171 survey-weighted operations nationally) were identified from 1477 community-living participants; mean (SD) age was 79.5 (7.0) years, with 56% being female. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,780 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
62/100
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Stress was more often reported by care providers who had been working for 1 to 2 years (compared with longer); in addition, those who had been working for 1 to 2 years were more likely to espouse hopeful or person-centered attitudes than those who had been working for a longer period of time. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 2-year rate of infection was 1.20 episodes per 100 resident days, and the hospitalization rate for infection was 0.17 admissions per 100 resident days. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) has a strong genetic component, with APOE ε4 being the most established risk factor through its effects on beta-amyloid (Aβ) metabolism and microglial function. 5 key findings →
Participants: 500,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No change was found in the Qualidem total score (range: 0-111) over 2 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
60/100
Overall, 1.45% of the study cohort age ≥65 received HBMC. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 132,147 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The inclusion criteria for peer-reviewed English publications from March 2020 to August 2022 consisted of studies related to telehealth services for people living with dementia and their family caregivers and studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More than one third of severely cognitively impaired residents in US nursing homes have feeding tubes. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 186,835 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The average CHADS2 score was 3.3 ± 1.3. After a diagnosis of dementia, 405 individuals (16%) persisted on warfarin therapy. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,572 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
After cohort matching, 48% of participants were women (n = 74 464), 61% were white (n = 93 442), and 31% (n = 48 056) were Medicare Advantage insured, with a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 154 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The analytic sample included 1 054 926 beneficiaries, including 219 942 (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.3] years; 54.6% female) who developed new complex conditions in 2019 and 834 984 (mean [SD] age, 73.8 [5.6] years; 56.7% female) who did not develop a new complex condition in 2019. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These include segmental colitis associated with diverticulitis, colorectal cancer, radiation proctitis, ischemic and infectious colitis, as well as NSAID-induced enterocolitis (6,7). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 123 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Meta-analyses of epidemiological studies have suggested that Alzheimer's disease (AD) may be linked with exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (MF). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 155,562 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The COVID-19 pandemic forced adult day services (ADS) to close and abruptly end in-person services to clients. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 19 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The program made it feasible to finance a costly treatment for patients that may benefit from it, while maintaining qualitative medical outcomes and sparing treating ophthalmologist from ethical gatekeeping dilemmas 5 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 5,642 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two hundred ten community-dwelling patients with Alzheimer's disease were examined prospectively by psychiatrists as part of a longitudinal study. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Residents exhibited better QOL than expected. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 120 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Though these findings cannot prove causality, and we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding, they provide more evidence of the risk of using these drugs in older patients, reinforcing the concept that they should not be used in the absence of clear need. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
Out of 50,089 LTC residents, 12.1% retained their family physicians post-LTC admission. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 18,341 patients, we found that 2202 (12%) were described as "frail" in clinical notes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 18,341 Evidence: moderate
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 28,180 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.
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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 →