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
Research
30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
There were 11.8 transitions to a nursing home per 100 person-years among older adults who resided in an assisted living facility with a dementia care program, compared with 20.5 transitions to a nursing home per 100 person-years among older adults who resided in an assisted living facility without a dementia care program. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 977 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
57/100
Yet, the association became not significant after controlling for individual physical function. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 199 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
53/100
Among 370,094 persons with dementia, 93,801 (25.4%) were in MA (mean age [SD], 86.9 [7.7], 67.6% female), 39,586 (10.7%) were ACO attributed (mean age [SD], 87.2 [7.6], 67.3% female), and 236,707 (63.9%) were in TM (mean age [SD], 87.0 [7.8], 67.6% female). 5 key findings →
Participants: 370,094 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
48/100
Average time to complete DEMQOL-CH was <5 minutes. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Up to 7 August 2020, there were 29,542 (95% CI 25,176 to 33,908) excess deaths in all care homes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
47/100
Among non-dually eligible beneficiaries, 9.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.0, 9.1) with ADRD disenrolled while 19.7% (95% CI: 19.6, 19.9) switched plans within MA compared to a disenrollment rate of 4.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 4.2) and switching rate of 22.8% (95% CI: 22.9, 22.8) for persons without ADRD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To determine the risk for dementia in neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) using a Finnish nationwide cohort of individuals with NF1, and data from national registries. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,349 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Five overarching themes derived from the interviews were as follows: (a) My life still has value and meaning, (b) I am my own unique individual, (c) I place my trust in other people, (d) The future worries me, and (e) I accept and embrace what life brings. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
44/100
Per-dyad mean cost savings at 12 months were $2 354 for those who received COPE with a mean difference-in-difference of -$6 667 versus HCBS alone (95% CI: -$15 473, $2 734; not statistically significant). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The agreement between the two measures of dementia differed by age: in 2017, 79.2% of hospital claims for patients aged 66–74 had a diagnosis of dementia compared to older age categories that had dementia noted in over 85% of records. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,273,348 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To assess whether home health agencies incur significantly higher care delivery costs for patients with cognitive impairment across three timeframes relevant to home health payment policy. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,214 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nearly half of the incident ADRD codes were associated with a hospital‐based encounter. 5 key findings →
Participants: 13,962 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified 6 themes regarding financial issues, staffing, appointment logistics, care provision during and after the memory evaluation as well as features of an ideal clinic. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were statistically significant improvements in resident well-being (Δ = 0.44, p = 0.029), Positive Engagement Potential (Δ = 0.17, p = 0.002), and Occupational Diversity (Δ = 0.12, p = 0.014) in 2016. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
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
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
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
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
41/100
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
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
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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →