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
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The experiences and preparedness of informal carers is a reflection of their personal response, but the distress experienced highlights the significant need of adequate support availability and of enhancing nursing staffs' dementia expertise to maximize their role in facilitating best interest decision-making. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article is a report on a study of the multidimensional predictors of caregiver burden in caregivers of individuals with dementia using nationally representative data. 1 key finding →
Participants: 302 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results showed that 68.02% of caregivers were highly burdened and 65% exhibited depressive symptoms. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium is a common and serious clinical condition that is associated with several adverse, and sometimes permanent outcomes. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The carers aged 56.2 (SD = 12.2); about two-thirds being female and adult-child caregivers. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fifty-three experts participated (eight completed all rounds). 5 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
46/100
Nursing home staff tended to perceive residents in more negative than positive ways. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The item-bank included 180 symptoms, most of which focus group nurses (n = 17) identified as occurring in advanced dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
41/100
This suggests that if physical distancing measures are extended for months or years until either herd immunity or a vaccination, a shocking proportion of LTC residents are likely to die under a 'new normal' of isolation that few would choose. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nursing homes generally met three quarters of the pre-defined criteria for advance care planning policy. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The analysis yielded three categories and nine subcategories describing surrogate decision-making practices regarding end-of-life care for people with dementia: (a) typical circumstances of end-of-life care planning, (b) expected roles of key personnel and related challenges and (c) important considerations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There was a lack of definitive evidence of effectiveness for most psychosocial interventions. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review included six articles, and nine categories emerged from the findings. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty formal carers employed in three nursing homes narrated 92 episodes of lucidity (ELs) in people with severe dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The review included 45 studies and identified key components and processes for successfully implementing advance care planning in dementia care. 5 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The overall advance care planning behavioural intention was at a moderately high level. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 →