PT assessment and utilization were uncommon in this group. 4 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
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.
45/100
Participants chose to forego more invasive or long-term treatments at a higher rate than less invasive, short-term treatments in all health states. 1 key finding →
Participants: 342 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite providing high-intensity care, often for years, many bereaved caregivers perceived themselves as unprepared for the death. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Unmet PC needs were highly prevalent (78.2%). 4 key findings →
Participants: 359 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Using a stress process model, risk factors (caregiving stressors, caregiver health, and negative social interactions) and protective factors (caregiving appraisals and social resources) were examined as predictors of family caregiver well-being (depression and life satisfaction). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Scores from domains were summed and classified into 3 categories: 4 or less, minimal; 5-12, moderate; and more than 12, significant content. 4 key findings →
Participants: 58 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Of 3883 older adults receiving a first palliative care consultation from this organization, 22% (855) had a dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 5153 decedents, 35.3% were in MA at death. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
AI/AN patients at the end-of-life were more likely to be hospitalized and less likely to use hospice compared with their NHW counterparts. 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,975 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Some indicators imply a less than optimal quality of care (restraints, pressure sores, psychoactive drugs, and the lack of documentation of shared decision-making) and suggest that far advanced demented patients are not fully perceived as "terminal." 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
84 (4.8%) had NGT procedure flags. Of these 84, 28 (33%) died during admission. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,765 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
39/100
Four themes regarding caring for PWD in hospice. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Medicare costs were reduced from hospice election until death using both 2009-2010 and new 2016 payment structures and rates. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We find a notable discord between physician opinion, reported practice, and the literature regarding PEG tubes in advanced dementia that reveals some of the barriers to decreasing the referral of these patients for PEG. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Advance care planning before an acute event is only the first step in a process of decision making. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
37/100
Key reflections from advisor meetings guided cultural adaptation: lived experiences on dementia caregiving; patient, caregiver, and clinician interactions in the health care system; and limited knowledge and misconceptions of palliative care. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
36/100
We identify two main ED physician-perceived barriers to PC provision: lack of access to medical records and lack of 24/7 availability of PC team. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The majority of deaths in the United States occur in the geriatric population. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hospice is the standard method for providing quality end-of-life care in the United States. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings from this survey indicate that cholinesterase inhibitors and/or NMDA receptor antagonists are prescribed for a subset of patients with advanced dementia and that a proportion of hospice medical directors report clinical benefit from the ongoing use of these agents. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Factor analysis of the Caregiver Strain Index revealed three dimensions of strain (role, personal, and emotional) related to caregiving. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Three hundred adult patients were included in the study. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
32/100
Reasons for declining included mis-association with hospice, not seeing additional benefit to current care, and reluctance to change current care. 3 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 →