27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Delirium is an important independent prognostic determinant of hospital outcomes including new nursing home placement, death or new nursing home placement, and functional decline-even after controlling for age, gender, dementia, illness severity, and functional status. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 727 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium in a patient with preexisting dementia is a common problem that may have serious complications and poor prognostic implications. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We developed machine learning prediction models for post-operative delirium that performed better than chance and are comparable with traditional stepwise logistic regression. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 134 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 2556 patients (mean age 79 ± 9 years; 56% women), delirium occurred in 957 (37%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,556 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 3D-CAM operationalizes the CAM algorithm using a 3-minute structured assessment with high sensitivity and specificity relative to a reference standard and could be an important tool for improving recognition of delirium. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 201 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Clinicians treating people with a hip fracture should be vigilant towards post-operative delirium if their patients are older, have pre-existing cognitive impairment and poorer overall general health. 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,704 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent studies suggest that delirium is associated with risk of dementia and also acceleration of decline in existing dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 232 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Design prospective cohort study. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 203 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirty-one studies describing 21 delirium screening tools were included in the systematic review. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium is frequent among older ICU patients. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 304 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Measurements and main results Criterion validity and overall accuracy of the Czech version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) were determined using serial daily delirium assessments with CAM-ICU by a junior physician compared with delirium diagnosis by delirium experts using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria that began the first day after stroke onset and continued for at least 7 days. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 129 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In older adults undergoing hip fracture surgery, duration of POD is an important prognostic factor for 6-month mortality. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 199 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Men are at higher risk of postoperative delirium after hip fracture repair than women and have more postoperative surgical complications. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SSD in older people may be a frequent and clinically important condition that falls on a continuum between no symptoms and full delirium. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review found significant variation among the cost estimates and methodological quality. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium is associated with cognitive decline and subsequent dementia, and rises in plasma total tau (tTau) and neurofilament light (NfL), providing links to Amyloid-Tau-Neurodegeneration (ATN) pathophysiology. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 54 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delirium is common, persistent, and independently associated with poor functional recovery 1 month after hip fracture even after adjusting for prefracture frailty. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In those aged 65 years or older, delirium was overall associated (all p<0·001, age and sex adjusted) with dementia ( adj OR 3·63 [95% CI 2·65–4·98]), pre-admission dependency (2·63 [2·02–3·43]), comorbidity burden (1·04 [1·02–1·05]), and frailty (moderate vs low risk 3·62 [2·70–4·85] and high vs low risk 11·85 [7·24–19·42]), with stronger associations in patients without comorbid dementia than in those with comorbid dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 290 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium is a frequent complication in older ICU patients and often persists beyond their ICU stay. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 45 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Delirium is a distressing neurocognitive disorder recently linked to sleep disturbances. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 818 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a maximum follow-up of 26 years, the median time to event was 1·2 years (IQR 0·2-3·3) in the delirium group and 1·3 years (0·3-3·6) in the control group. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 909 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 62 RCTs comprising 200,068 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 200,068 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Out of 929 patients, 184 (20%) experienced POD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 929 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All three psychomotor disturbance subtypes had an elevated risk of dying during the 1-year follow-up relative to the normal psychomotor group, though the hypoactive group had the highest mortality risk and was the only group with a statistically significantly elevated risk relative to the normal group. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The DelApp test showed good performance, supporting the utility of objectively measuring attention in delirium assessment. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 50 Evidence: moderate
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →