As rates of dementia increase, the need for care is clear. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
30/100
The basic social process that emerged from the data was that of nurses trying to identify an ACP level and craft a corresponding care plan that they believed would optimise residents' comfort in LTC during both acute medical events and at the end-of-life (EOL). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia is a syndrome characterised by the development of multiple cognitive deficits and behavioural changes that significantly interfere with various aspects of life. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Number of patients on the unit with an ACP increased between May 2024 and January 2025, from a low of 0% on 03/06/24 to a high of 53% on 12/12/24. 5 key findings →
Participants: 67 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
How should I approach advance care planning (ACP) and goals of care (GOC) discussions with patients living with dementia? 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
30/100
As dementia progresses to advanced stages, the need for compassionate and person-centred care becomes paramount. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Six key themes were identified: Inadequate preparation, guidance and access to appropriate resources; Taboo and misunderstanding: talking about death; Dementia as a terminal illness and the role of palliative care; Key time points, critical events and decisions; Planning ahead not in reality; Family issues and dynamics. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are a common finding on magnetic resonance (MR) images in older individuals, appearing as high-signal intensity regions on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) imaging. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Europe's ageing population is transforming universal healthcare from a financing challenge into a delivery-capacity challenge. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
It has been some time since the Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Technology has published an article on best practices in amyloid imaging. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than 3 months. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A food desert is a geographic area lacking spatial and socioeconomic access to healthy foods. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
MA-PD enrollees had significantly lower utilization of PIMs than standalone PDP enrollees: a 0.7 percentage-point [95% CI: 0.5, 0.8] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia; a 3.1 percentage-point [2.6, 3.5] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia and a history of falls; and a 0.5 percentage-point [0.4, 0.6] lower prevalence of high-risk medications in older adults. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results support a functional hippocampal anterior‐posterior differentiation in memory processes and further stress the importance of integrating the dissociation of the hippocampus along its long‐axis concerning functional connectivity in memory processes and dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This thesis developed new Bayesian models to enhance the spatial and temporal resolution of health estimates at the small area level in Australia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.
1,038 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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 →