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
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
UK care home residents are often poorly served by existing healthcare arrangements. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 323 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, not all plant-based foods are necessarily beneficial for dementia or depression. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 180,532 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
among VRFs-free participants, TC (HR 0.62, 95%CI 0.40-0.95) and LDL-C (HR 0.47, 95%CI 0.28-0.80) were inversely associated with incident dementia, LDL-C was inversely associated with incident AD (HR 0.50, 95%CI 0.28-0.90). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
APPLE-Tree has a high probability of being cost-effective for a 1-point NTB gain, a difference previously associated with a three-fold reduction in 5-year dementia risk. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 746 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 4AT is a new test for rapid screening of delirium in routine clinical practice. 1 key finding →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this large multicentre and long-term population-based study, some well-known risk factors for dementia, of vascular and Alzheimer's type, are confirmed but not others. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,075 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
However, in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) there is a lack of evaluation and the cross-cultural validity of SRH remains largely untested. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 16,940 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is recommended to test for cognitive impairment and to monitor medication response. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 7,073 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Attendance was good (82.8% attended ≥4/6 sessions). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher cognitive reserve was associated with better cognition, fewer functional difficulties, more physical activity and better quality of life at baseline but was associated with accelerated cognitive decline and greater dependence over time. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,537 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium increases risk of future cognitive decline and dementia, independent of illness severity and baseline cognition, with more episodes associated with worse cognitive outcomes. 5 key findings →
Participants: 205 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We included 134 consecutive bedridden end-stage dementia patients admitted during a 36-month period, and surviving in the ward for <6 months. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 134 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We conclude that smaller PFAv may contribute to slower gait through slower information processing. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 214 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between October 2021 and June 2022, 53 candidates were assessed; 29 met eligibility criteria and were randomised. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 29 Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One hundred sixteen participants consented and 93 (46 waitlist control, 47 intervention) were included in the analyses. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 93 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Such complex needs require an integrated response from general health professionals and multidisciplinary dementia specialists. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 291,169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CogDrisk-ML outperformed CAIDE in the UK Biobank and Whitehall II cohorts; however, it provided similar C statistics in the ARIC dataset. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study aims to determine whether single and dual sensory impairment (hearing and/or vision) are independently associated with cognitive decline among older adults and to describe cognitive trajectories according to their impairment pattern. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this real-life crossover study, THC/CBD oil did not show superiority over placebo in reducing agitation in severe dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 25 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Future studies should prioritize short-term interventions and develop integrated approaches combining individual and group formats. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 750 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
DSD is linked to adverse outcomes, compared to dementia alone, like longer hospitalisation [3], mortality [3, 4], functional decline [3] and need for residential care [3]. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 64 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results from this study provide information about a group void in the literature pertaining to activity restriction from fear of falling - community-based seniors receiving home care services. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,304 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Vitality was associated with disability primarily through the mediation of other IC domains. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,389 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →