This controlled study showed significant short-term efficacy of carbamazepine for agitation with generally good safety and tolerability. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
As hypothesized, residents who exhibited a greater number of positive reactive behaviors while listening to music also evidenced more improvements in their confusion, disengagement, unresponsiveness, and restlessness after their music-listening session. 3 key findings →
Participants: 101 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Black older adults are less likely to move to assisted living and are more likely to move to a nursing home compared to white older adults. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,212 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Our results revealed relatively equal reliance on home care (HC) and facility-based residential care (RC) as starting points. 4 key findings →
Participants: 3,541 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The most observed resident affect type was neutral (53.1% of all minutes observed), followed by positive affect (44.5%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aging of the European population will lead to a rapid increase in dementia cases in the coming decades, posing challenges for the organization and provision of end-of-life care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Measurement using validated tools for resident and family satisfaction and health outcomes showed that culture change interventions or clusters of interventions had few negative impacts, but also seldom resulted in statistically significant improvement. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Comorbidity indices for patients with cognitive impairment increased during the 6-year study period, especially after the index. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,711 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
49/100
In 2022, the overall prevalence of homebound beneficiaries was 22.0% (8.4% of beneficiaries were homebound, and 13.6% were semihomebound). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We found that a larger share of Hispanic Medicare residents that are admitted to nursing homes have ADRD compared with African American and White beneficiaries. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,302,099 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
According to the National Institute on Aging (NIA), there are more than 70 associated genes or genetic areas associated with Alzheimer’s when 20 years ago, we knew of only four (Hodes, 2022). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 42 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
He has even given a threshold outlining when the practice of medicine ends versus when the practice of unethical, non–institutional review board approved research begins. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The neurodegenerative disease field has enjoyed extremely limited success in the development of effective therapeutics. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Use of pharmacological treatments is one possible modifiable risk factor for cognitive disorders. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 282,858 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
49/100
PA policies varied substantially across private insurers in the US. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
On Census Day, 1.4% of the study sample were living in a nursing home, 1.2% in a seniors' residence, 7.1% in a private dwelling with additional family, and 90.3% in a private dwelling. 5 key findings →
Participants: 81,411 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
TBI had the highest percentage (37%) compared to other conditions, which may be attributed to the prevalent challenge of cognitive impairment in TBI in addition to physical disability. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,285 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
48/100
In 2014 and 2016, the overall prevalence of AD/ADRD diagnoses was 5.6% and 6.5%, respectively. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Receipt of potentially burdensome hospitalizations and treatments; receipt of postdischarge home and facility care. 5 key findings →
Participants: 659 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The newly diagnosed ADRD and new AChEI users cohorts included 861,727 and 395,319 patients, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 861,727 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Prior authorization criteria for Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved immunotherapeutics, among the class of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), established by state drug formulary committees, are tailored for adults with late-onset Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 508 eligible MA enrollees, mean age was 82.8 (SD = 7.2) years, 81% were female, and 49% were non-Latino White; 62 participants (12%) were classified as having dementia by the cohort assessment. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To ensure diversity, we developed a comprehensive recruitment strategy using a diverse, culturally‐trained staff that includes : • Identifying Dementia Specialists experienced recruiting minorities • Embedding high‐impact community engagement in select regions • Increasing capacity of specialists and PET facilities to engage minorities • Increasing pipeline of referrals to Dementia Specialists • Creating a culturally‐informed awareness campaign Result New IDEAS has enrolled 4,524 participants including 954 (21.1%) Black/African American, and 842 (18.6%) Hispanic/Latinx. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,524 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) launched in England in 2019 to expand the multidisciplinary primary care workforce, but its impact on workload since implementation is unclear. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 986 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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 →