64/100
Cognitive decline and dementia are frequent in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
There is type 1b evidence for gingko biloba in producing a modest benefit of cognitive function; cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of people with Lewy body disease (particularly neuropsychiatric symptoms); cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in treatment cognitive impairment associated with vascular dementia; and the effect of metal collating agents (although these should not be prescribed until more data on safety and efficacy are available). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A number of health and lifestyle factors are thought to contribute to cognitive decline associated with age but cannot be easily modified by the individual patient. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Behavioral prevention strategies can help maintain high levels of cognition and functional integrity, and can reduce the social, medical, and economic burden associated with cognitive aging and age-associated neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher adherence to a Mediterranean-type diet was associated with decreased cognitive decline, although the Mediterranean diet (MeDi) combines several foods, micronutrients, and macronutrients already separately proposed as potential protective factors against dementia and predementia syndromes. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There are a substantial number of people with dementia worldwide and these numbers will continue to increase mainly in LMIC, producing a wide range of impacts. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-one studies describing 21 delirium screening tools were included in the systematic review. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prevalence of swallowing difficulties in patients with dementia ranged from 13 to 57%. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Chronic low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) concentrations are common in adults and are associated with numerous non-skeletal diseases. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It has been estimated that 5.1million Americans suffer from heart failure. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is lack of sound studies examining fall risk factors in cognitively impaired elders. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is abundant evidence on the health and fitness effects of tai chi. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a technique of noninvasive cortical stimulation allowing significant modification of brain functions. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Many older people's crisis teams tend to focus on prevention and reducing psychiatric admissions. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review shows that occupational therapy interventions for community dwelling elderly people results in positive outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Drivers with dementia are poorer drivers than cognitively normal drivers, but studies have not consistently demonstrated higher crash rates. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Without validated cutoff scores, it is impossible to employ tests in a standardized fashion in front-line clinical settings. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SSD in older people may be a frequent and clinically important condition that falls on a continuum between no symptoms and full delirium. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Whilst palliative care is appropriate for elderly patients with chronic, non-malignant disease, few of these patients access such care compared with cancer patients. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our aim was to review systematically the effectiveness of ACP interventions in people with cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Gatekeeping is motivated by the general assumption of vulnerability of patients, coupled with an emphasis on the duty to protect patients. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is need for clearer articulation of the likely mechanisms by which advance care planning can lead to reduced care costs or improved cost-effectiveness, particularly for people who retain capacity. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite much data, we lack a unifying guideline for dementia prognostication. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the literature concerning place of death of people with dementia and the preferences for location of death of people with dementia as well as family carers and healthcare providers preferred location of death for patients with dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caring for people with dementia in primary care demands the same systematic approach as the management of other long-term conditions. 1 key finding →
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 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.
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 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 →