Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegenerative tauopathy associated with repetitive head impact (RHI) exposure. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The project is expected to generate evidence on the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of multidomain interventions implemented across diverse real-world settings, including community, hospital, and long-term care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Change in QoL (decreased, maintained or improved) was determined using a cross-tabulation test. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Consistent with previous research, transfer gains from the OMT condition to an untrained VM task suggest that olfaction may contribute to a‐modal representations of memory. 3 key findings →
Participants: 53 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 747 studies identified, 6 studies fulfilled the eligibility criterion for this review. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The demographic transition during the recent decades has resulted in an increase in older adults globally. 2 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Mediterranean diet, rich in plant-based foods, olive oil, and fish, has been consistently associated with slower cognitive decline and reduced risk of neurodegeneration in observational studies and some clinical trials. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Emotion scores for fear and surprise were significantly higher for the AD group than for the MCI group during dual tasks (p=0.016), while emotion scores for joy were significantly higher for the MCI group than for the AD group during creative activities (p=0.012). 4 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
41/100
The evidence for cognitive training in preventing cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease is varied, with some studies indicating cognitive benefits but showing limited impact on functional outcomes or disease progression. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive training shows potential in preventing cognitive decline in individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease, especially as part of multimodal interventions, though current evidence varies in quality and clarity. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive training appears effective in improving cognitive functions and delaying cognitive decline in people at risk of Alzheimer's disease but requires more standardized research for conclusive evidence. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
AWVs were associated with reduced risks for falls (HR: 0.976 for 2 AWVs; 0.936 for ≥3 AWVs) and fractures (HR: 0.978 for 1 AWV; 0.960 for 2 AWVs; 0.927 for ≥3 AWVs), with greater reductions observed with more AVWs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Identifying strategies to enhance patient engagement and to control healthcare costs promotes a responsive and efficient healthcare system. 4 key findings →
Participants: 401 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Misconceptions were common: 38% of participants equated ACP exclusively with decisions to forgo active treatment, and many conflated ACP with current rather than future-oriented care planning. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
172 patients with symptomatic prion disease were identified. 165 (94.8%) patients experienced ≥1 symptom/sign likely to benefit from palliative care, yet only 113 (65.7%) patients accessed palliative care resources during the illness course (hospice care: 39.7%; palliative care consultation: 14.9% inpatient, 6.9% outpatient; both: 3.4%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 172 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All patients had a Needs Near the End-of-Life Care Screening (NEST-13) score ≥30, indicating a high level of EOL care need. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 301 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 2,435,099 weighted hospitalizations, palliative care documentation was present in 65,675 (2.70%), increasing from 2.13% in 2016 to 3.43% in 2022. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Carers' knowledge about dementia was moderate overall, with higher scores among those with greater education and previous dementia exposure. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
41/100
ACP is linked to lower EOL spending and a shift from inpatient to outpatient ADRD care; structured ACP delivery should be considered. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Providing end-of-life care for patients with COPD, dementia, and cancer involves a focus on symptom management, integration of palliative care, and respecting patient preferences, while engaging families in the care process. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Appendix B. Coding tree of main categories and specific sub categories describing factors influencing readiness for advance care planning among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Appendix A. Interview guides on experiences with advance care planning, factors influencing readiness for advance care planning, and the use of conversation aids among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent advancements in molecular biomarkers and therapeutic options for Alzheimer's disease have brought into focus the need for greater progress in the second most common cause of dementia, vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
41/100
Higher education was associated with lower vascular risk (p < 0.001) and WMH burden (p = 0.004). 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 28,180 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 →