ED attendance in the last year of life for people with dementia is common and is increasing. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,867 Evidence: moderate
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.
Decision-making interventions typically consist of multiple components which aim to establish preferences for future health care. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All 23 were able to articulate their end-of-life wishes very or somewhat coherently during the SPIRIT session; of those, 14 PWDs had moderate dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These data indicate the high symptom burden of persons with dementia in Germany at the end of their lives. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review highlights the complexities of pain in NH residents and has implications for both clinical practice and future research. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nursing home staff benefits from this training in shared decision-making. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Future studies are needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of using antibiotics for patients during EOL care in diverse patient populations. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The final cohort included 27 243 nursing home residents with advanced dementia (19 363 [71.1%] women) who died between June 1, 2010, and March 31, 2015, at the median (interquartile range) age of 88 (83-92) years. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia receiving postacute care in HH or SNF experienced similar rates of readmission and mortality across settings. 2 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 977,946 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Those with high baseline stress levels are more likely to develop mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence suggests that AF is associated with a higher risk for cognitive impairment and dementia, with or without a history of clinical stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After multivariable adjustment, patients showed an odds ratio (OR) of 1·61 (95% CI 0·80-3·25) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 4·60 (1·85-11·48) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for diffusion impairment; OR 0·88 (0·66-1·17) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and OR 1·76 (1·05-2·96) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for anxiety or depression, and OR 0·87 (0·68-1·11) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 2·75 (1·61-4·69) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for fatigue or muscle weakness. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
Statin users were less likely to have incident dementia/cognitive impairment without dementia during a 5-year follow-up. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,674 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our study found that midlife stage 1 and stage 2 systolic hypertension is associated with increased risk of AD by 18 and 25%, respectively, although no association was found for diastolic hypertension. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To define Alzheimer's disease with biomarkers rather than clinical assessment, we assessed prediction of research-diagnosed disease status using these biomarkers and tested genetic variants associated with the biomarkers that may reflect more accurately the risk of biochemically defined Alzheimer's disease instead of the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 1,439 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An accurate blood test for Alzheimer's disease that is sensitive to preclinical proteinopathy and cognitive decline has clear implications for early detection and secondary prevention. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 165 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood biomarkers have great potential to advance clinical care and accelerate trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood biomarkers have been considered tools for the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
It is currently unclear whether plasma biomarkers can be used as independent prognostic tools to predict changes associated with early Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 123 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the precuneus, we observed an inverted U-shaped pattern of novelty-related activity across groups, with higher activity in SCD and MCI compared with HC, but not in patients with AD who showed relatively lower activity than MCI. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 499 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
We demonstrated that higher amyloid burden as measured by both CSF amyloid beta 42/40 ratio and non-displaceable binding potential in the posterior cingulate cortex was associated with lower functional connectivity in the default mode network. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 173 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood exosomes, which are extracellular vesicles secreted by living cells into the circulating blood, are regarded as a relatively noninvasive novel tool for monitoring brain physiology and disease states. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our systematic review shows evidence for disruptions in (night-time) melatonin levels in AD as compared to age-matched controls. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Emerging plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease might be non-invasive tools to trace early Alzheimer's disease-related abnormalities such as the accumulation of amyloid-beta peptides, neurofibrillary tau tangles, glial activation and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 164 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both verbal and visual computerized memory tests showed comparable diagnostic performance to the paper-and-pencil tests. 1 key finding →
Participants: 18,450 Evidence: low
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 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 →