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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 847 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-six resident videos were shared with family (N = 50) and staff (N = 38) during care plan meetings. 5 key findings →
Participants: 50 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
75/100
More than half (55.65%) of AL residents had a diagnosis of SMI, among them 93.2% had major depression, 28.5% schizophrenia, and 22.2% bipolar disorder. 4 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 289,350 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
This review confirms that clinically significant NPSs are common in NH patients with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,458 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
20% of individuals with newly identified dementia were homebound and this group was more functionally impaired, medically complex, and socioeconomically disadvantaged as compared to the non-homebound. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 939 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 23 892 individuals moving-in to care homes, 20 250 (84.8%) died by 31 May 2020. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 892 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were 21 603 to 51 236 patients per year (total for 2010-2020, 381 488 patients) in the OAC-eligible incident AF cohort (mean [SD] age, 77.2 [6.1] to 77.4 [6.8] years; 13 871 [51.8%] to 22 901 [49.8%] women). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 236 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Not only dementia diagnosis but also time spent with the diagnosis was crucial for the use of LTC in the month preceding death, in particular residential care. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,294 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
68/100
Prioritizing measures that distinguish the assessment of care from the assessment of dying, and secondarily that exhibit an acceptable factor structure, this study recommends two measures of care-the Family Perceptions of Physician-Family Caregiver Communication and the End of Life in Dementia (EOLD)-Satisfaction With Care-and two measures of outcomes-the EOLD-Symptom Management and the EOLD-Comfort Assessment in Dying. 5 key findings →
Participants: 264 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among individuals who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, 32% (27 698 of 87 337) sought medical attention in the post-acute period for one or more new or persistent clinical sequelae, which was 11% higher than the 2020 comparison group. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 87 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Based on the psychometric qualities and criteria regarding sensitivity and clinical utility, we conclude that PACSLAC and DOLOPLUS2 are the most appropriate scales currently available. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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
We conclude that dementia and cognitive impairment are common among older adults with hip fractures. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
The outcomes of each model of care differ and correspond to the model's focus. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 →