Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 847 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Collaborative dementia care programs are effective in addressing the needs of patients with dementia and their caregivers. 3 key findings →
Participants: 780 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The inclusion criteria for peer-reviewed English publications from March 2020 to August 2022 consisted of studies related to telehealth services for people living with dementia and their family caregivers and studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The COVID-19 pandemic forced adult day services (ADS) to close and abruptly end in-person services to clients. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 19 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our pilot study results indicate that it is feasible to recruit, retain, and provide follow-up telephone coaching to older adults after hip fracture. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The advent of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), from symptomatic relief to disease modification. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DeMonte Jr., MD, Joshua Chodosh, MD, MSHS, Xinping Cui, PhD, Stefanie Vassar, MS, Naihua Duan, PhD, and Martin Lee, PhDReduced Health Care Costs Associated With Disease Management for Chronic Heart Failure: A Study Using Three Methods to Examine the Financial Impact of a Heart Failure Disease Management Program Among Medicare Advantage EnrolleesEffects of Nurse Management on the Quality of Heart Failure Care in Minority Communities A Randomized TrialJane E. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
55/100
Prevalence studies indicate that as many as 50% of older adults experience bothersome pain on a regular basis (Dahlhamer et al., 2018; Galicia-Castillo & Weiner, 2023; Larsson et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2020; Rikard et al., 2023). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,041 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At baseline, no significant difference (P > .05) existed between the groups in the scores: (1) for cognitive function on the MMSE or MoCA, (2) for the physiological, psychological, social, and environmental domains and the total score on the WHOQOL-BREF, or (3) for self-efficacy on the GSES scores. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 112 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among 45 029 participants undergoing cognitive assessment, mean (SD) age was 67.9 (8.0) years; 80.7% were men. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,197 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The authors observed that “Our findings showed that nurses provided chronic disease management that was acceptable, feasible and sustainable.” 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Crotty M, Whitehead CH, Wundke R, et al . 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 320 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
He has even given a threshold outlining when the practice of medicine ends versus when the practice of unethical, non–institutional review board approved research begins. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The neurodegenerative disease field has enjoyed extremely limited success in the development of effective therapeutics. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In most of these nonacademic healthcare delivery systems, traditional randomized clinical trial designs to evaluate effectiveness are too rigid, too expensive, and take too long to achieve results. 5 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In total, 147 participants across 21 US sites were invited to participate and 111 provided informed consent. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 147 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent positive results of three phase III anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody trials are transforming the landscape of disease-modifying therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease, following several decades of failures. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
44/100
Greater spend on social care (including availability of care home places) was associated with reduced spend in health care, with shorter length of hospital stay and decrease in readmissions. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2018, France withdrew reimbursement for cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) in Alzheimer's disease, citing modest efficacy, lack of long-term benefit, and safety concerns. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
AimTo explore the experiences and challenges for residential care home staff when managing the healthcare needs of their residents, in particular those living with dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administrative data are among the most practical sources for understanding the incidence of dementia over time in older populations, but have yet to be widely used in intervention studies. 1 key finding →
Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 39 participants participated across the 6 stakeholder focus groups. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 39 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of this study, conducted in three phases, was to develop a clinically useful observational tool (i.e., the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors With Limited Ability to Communicate [PACSLAC]) to assess pain in seniors with severe dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The current study aimed to provide data on the effectiveness of the 10 cm2 rivastigmine patch in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a real-world setting in Taiwan. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This clinical trial was designed in partnership with a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, with the goal of comparing two care management approaches for its MA policyholders age >65 living with cognitive vulnerability. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events