When planning liaison services, the setting and demographic features of the population need to be taken into account. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Delirium prolongs hospitalization for persons with dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 139 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Given the wealth of existing literature, future research should avoid simple risk factor evaluation except for novel candidates, validate existing prognostic models where possible, and instead focus on interventional research. 3 key findings →
Design: umbrella review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CSD is common in older inpatients and associated with considerably worse outcomes, with little variation between different types of CSD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 10,014 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Middle-aged HIV-infected adults have high fall risk. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 359 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The presence of burst suppression, which was unexpectedly high in this medical intensive care unit population, was an independent predictor of increased risk of death at 6 months. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 125 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Changing staff practice in nursing homes is possible but complex. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Although psychotropic drug use has been associated with increased risk of falls in long-term care settings; this association may be confounded by the high prevalence of dementia and depression and other fall risk factors. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 178 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Elevated preoperative and postoperative plasma levels of C-reactive protein were associated with delirium, suggesting that a preinflammatory state and heightened inflammatory response to surgery are potential pathophysiologic mechanisms of delirium. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 566 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Urinary tract infections, pressure areas, pneumonia and delirium are potentially preventable hospital-acquired complications. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When prospectively validated at the bedside and used as a continuous measure, the ability of the ADEPT score to identify nursing home residents with advanced dementia at high risk of death within 6 months was modest, albeit better than hospice eligibility guidelines. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although the majority of studies agreed that the Functional Assessment Staging 7c criterion was not a reliable predictor of 6-month mortality, we found a lack of prognosticator concordance across the literature. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The goal of the present study was to assess the validity of the Medicare hospice eligibility guidelines for dementia patients, as well as identify predictors that could more accurately identify prognosis in dementia patients referred to hospice. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 245 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These contrasting illness narratives affect and shape the experiences, thoughts, and fears of patients and their carers in the last months of life. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This statistical prediction is recommended for use in combination with clinical judgment to certify DAT patients for Medicare hospice coverage. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 104 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
60/100
These findings underscore the complexity of the hospice patient population and highlight a potential need to risk adjust the per diem hospice reimbursement rates to account for increased resource requirements for hospices serving patients with higher comorbidity burden. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 27,166 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
60/100
Among hospitalized patients with serious illness, documented goals-of-care discussions identified by NLP were more common among patients with older age and increased burden of acute or chronic illness, and less common among racially or ethnically minoritized patients. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The review highlights characteristics that could help identify patients at risk of ED attendance near the end of life and potential service-related factors to reduce risks. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Respiratory distress escalated in the last days. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 91 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After backward stepwise selection in year 0, the following factors were associated with increased risk of death by more than 10%: being hospitalized; having congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or dementia; having moderate to high pain; having worse well-being; having functional status in the transitional or end-of-life phase; having any problems with appetite; receiving end-of-life home care; and living in a nursing home. 2 key findings →
Participants: 494 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
(1) Data-driven AD progression models supported multifactorial interactions rather than a linear cascade of events. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although numerous studies of the longitudinal course of schizophrenia have demonstrated the clinical deterioration that occurs predominantly in the early stages of the illness, the pathophysiology of this clinical phenomenon has not been established. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 107 Evidence: moderate
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →