27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Adults aged 65+ are at highest risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and prior to the distribution of vaccines in the U.S., were strongly advised to quarantine at home to reduce risk of infection. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 156 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This community-based cluster randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of a 4-week multimedia educational intervention followed by telephone consultations at Weeks 12 and 24 on the selection of a hospice program for end-of-life care and completion of an advance directive (AD) in case of future advanced dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients in the experimental group showed a significant improvement in various neuropsychological domains due to the training, and these effects decreased after 12 months. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hearing loss is highly prevalent in dementia; however, people with dementia are less likely to use hearing aids consistently than people with intact cognition are. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study examined the impact of advance care planning (ACP) on healthcare utilization among older adults with normal cognition and impaired cognition/dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,698 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Latino family caregivers of people with dementia face significant challenges and limited access to support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Family caregivers of older adults living with severe dementia had the highest baseline Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) score of 27.7 which decreased to 25.0 (p < .05); family caregivers of those living with moderate dementia had a baseline ZBI score of 24.3 which decreased to 20.4 (p < .01); and family caregivers of those living with mild dementia had the lowest baseline ZBI score of 21.0, which decreased to 18.0 (p < .01). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article estimates the prevalence and identifies risk factors of resident aggression and abuse in assisted living facilities. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although much of the research on service use by older adults with dementia relies on proxy reports by informal caregivers, little research assesses the accuracy of these reports, and that which does exist, does not focus on home care services. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The objectives of this study are (1) to identify beneficiary-level characteristics associated with skilled nursing facility (SNF) length of stay (LOS), and (2) to determine if significant differences in LOS exist for vulnerable populations at the individual level or among nursing homes that serve a disproportionate share of vulnerable populations. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most of the 5.4 million people affected by Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia (AD) are noninstitutionalized, receiving care by unpaid family caregivers and medically managed by a primary care provider (PCP). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To better understand the process and outcomes of family involvement for long-term care residents with varying stages of dementia, we analyzed family and staff data for 467 residents of 24 residential care/assisted living and nursing-home settings. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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.
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 →