Since our cognitive training showed beneficial effects, it could be a promising method to prevent POCD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 37 Evidence: high
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.
In this pilot study, RFM and the multi-domain approach CPR were feasible and had preliminary beneficial effects in older adults with MCI in primary care setting in Hong Kong. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The heterogeneous and multi-factorial nature of dementia requires the consideration of all health aspects when predicting the risk of its development and planning strategies for its prevention. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Quality of the reporting of trials varied. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,353 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use of light propofol sedation decreased the prevalence of postoperative delirium by 50% compared with deep sedation. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 114 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The meta-analysis suggests a consistent moderate association between ADL and EF, supporting the growing evidence for a link between ADL and executive dysfunction in early dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,663 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Studies are heterogeneous in many aspects, including size sample, intervention, and instruments of measures. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,711 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the prevalence of OD is high in different populations and its trend has been increasing in recent years. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The evidence base on tools for detection of delirium superimposed on dementia is limited, although some existing tools show promise. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,569 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Faster alleviation of delirium and improved cognition justify good, comprehensive geriatric care for these patients although treatment produced no significant improvements in hard endpoints of prognosis. 4 key findings →
Participants: 87 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We collected a total of 29 prospective studies for the systematic literature review and meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
In this 10-week, double-blind, fixed-dose study, elderly institutionalized patients with dementia and agitation were randomized (3:3:2) to quetiapine 200mg/day, 100mg/day, or placebo. 2 key findings →
Participants: 117 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A lower proportion of patients with cancer had palliative care initiated in the home (16 088 [14.5%]) compared with patients with chronic organ failure (6904 [32.8%]; absolute difference, -18.3%) or dementia (3922 [27.9%]; absolute difference, -13.4%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 709 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings highlight the potential benefits of palliative care in some non-cancer illnesses. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,936 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
FCC facilitates a palliative approach to care. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The large number of well-characterized candidate facilities enabled several unique design features including stratification on historical hospitalization rates, randomization prior to recruitment, and 2:1 control to intervention facilities ratio. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding referral criteria for palliative care in patients with dementia and the need to identify timely triggers to standardize referral. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 43 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This will be vital in moving to a phase III trial that is pragmatic and feasible for these complex patients within the NHS. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Average volumetric changes are close to the limit of detection by MRI methods. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,424 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
Hippocampal volume increase in response to aerobic exercise has been consistently observed in animal models. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 737 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Over the last decade a significant number of studies have reported smaller hippocampal volume in individuals with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) relative to control groups, and in some cases hemispheric asymmetries in this effect have been noted. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 13 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Conjugated equine estrogens with or without MPA are associated with greater brain atrophy among women aged 65 years and older; however, the adverse effects are most evident in women experiencing cognitive deficits before initiating hormone therapy. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The meta-analyses revealed structural brain abnormalities associated with PTSD and trauma and suggest that global brain volume reductions distinguish PTSD from major depression. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 113 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
74/100
APOE ɛ4 was associated with atrophic hippocampal volume in MRI markers, increased cerebral amyloid deposition and cerebral hypometabolism. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,628 Evidence: high
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 →