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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We aimed to synthesise data on risk factors for incident delirium and where possible conduct meta-analysis of these. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 411 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The global prevalence of MCI among community dwellers is over 15% and is affected by age, gender, education level and region of study sites. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 242,804 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A total of 21,788 citations were screened, and seven studies of diverse quality were included in the review, comprising 1,691 participants. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,691 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
78/100
We sought to determine the frequency and prognosis of persistent delirium (PerD) in older hospital patients by systematically reviewing original research on this topic. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,322 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive training interventions show to be a potential treatment to ameliorate depression in people with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,551 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,711 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
Little is known on how risk factors of younger cohorts will play out in the future burden of multi-morbidity (two or more concurrent long-term conditions). 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 303,589 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
71/100
We identified a non-linear association of type 2 diabetes duration and the risk of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 13,761 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adult vaccinations, particularly against herpes zoster, influenza, pneumococcus and Tdap, are associated with a lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 104,031,186 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Little is known about preferred place of death, or the factors associated with achieving this, for people with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 472 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The incidence and prevalence of delirium in hospitals appears to be stable, though publication bias may have masked true changes. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
From October 2018 to March 2020, 58 participants were recruited (29 per group, 95% [86%-99%]). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 58 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Residents who died from non-sudden causes between 1 October 2013 and 31 May 2014 in these facilities were included (n = 674). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 674 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our objective was to evaluate the epidemiological evidence linking cognitive impairment and fall risk. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Scope it has been suggested that overweight/obesity as a risk factor for incident dementia differs between mid-life and later life. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Educational support for general practitioners should concentrate on epidemiological knowledge, disclosure of the diagnosis and management of behaviour problems in dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study provides a systematic review of predictors of NHP in the general population of developed countries. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
65/100
Among 2556 patients (mean age 79 ± 9 years; 56% women), delirium occurred in 957 (37%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,556 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One million nine hundred twenty-five thousand, five hundred sixty-three individuals were included across the four databases with a median follow-up ranging from 5.6 to 8.4 years. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Design prospective cohort study. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 203 Evidence: moderate
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
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
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →