27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Despite older racial and ethnic minorities (REMs) being more likely to develop dementia they are underrepresented in clinical trials focused on neurological disorders. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 100,748 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 91,881 participants (mean age 59.3 at baseline, 55.0% female participants), 16,507 incident ADRD cases were identified from Medicare claims (1999-2016, mean follow-up 9.3 years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 91,881 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia prevalence rates reported for age 65+ years from a low of 6.3% in Japanese Americans, 12.9% in Caribbean Hispanic Americans, 12.2% in Guamanian Chamorro and ranged widely in African Americans from 7.2% to 20.9%. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,215 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
1,901 participants completed the MoCA and 547 the HCAP. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,901 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
receipt of (1) any mental health treatment (medication or psychotherapy); (2) any psychotherapy in a calendar quarter. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,913,945 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among these, 85.5% were non-Hispanic (NH) white, 8% NH black, 4.34% Hispanic or Latino, 1.6% NH Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.3% NH American Indian or Alaska Native adults. 5 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 10,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In both phases, men were encouraged to visit their physician if the screen results indicated possible cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,540 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample included 673,102 PWD (mean age 86, 66% female, 85% White, 7.3% Black, 6.3% Hispanic, 1.6% AAPI) enrolled in 4371 hospices nationwide. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 673,102 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
12,887 participants were interviewed at baseline. 11,718 were free of dementia, of whom 8137 (69%) were reinterviewed, contributing 34,718 person-years of follow-up. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 12,887 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study enrolled 181 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.6 [7.2] years; 114 [63.0%] female): 91 to the intervention arm (depression in later life [DIL] intervention) and 90 to care as usual (CAU). 1 key finding →
Participants: 181 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Stigma negatively affects individuals with cognitive impairment and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 51 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Variation in service use among sites was most plausibly accounted for by stark differences in the extent of out-of-pocket expenses, and the ability of older people and their families to afford them. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17,944 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This is the first report of incidence rate differences for dementia and AD in studies of 2 populations from nonindustrialized and industrialized countries using identical methods and the same group of investigators in both sites. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,459 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among those newly diagnosed, Black and Hispanic patients encountered higher total costs compared to White patients, and ADRD patients living in the most vulnerable areas experienced the highest total costs compared to patients living in other regions. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 742,175 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Brain clocks, which quantify discrepancies between brain age and chronological age, hold promise for understanding brain health and disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 5,306 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia diagnosis recording in general hospitals is increasing but remains less likely in some groups. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 21,387 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Low-dose aspirin did not prevent depression in this large-scale study of otherwise healthy older adults. 3 key findings →
Participants: 114 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among subjects identified as having dementia by the prediction model, 43.5% to 50.2%, depending on the survey year, reported that they were informed of the dementia status by their physician. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,686 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Generally, Blacks and Latinos reported higher prevalence of poor HRQOL compared with whites. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 10,886 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Black decedents were less likely than White decedents to use hospice for 3 or more days (132 of 378 [34.9%] vs 385 of 834 [46.2%]; P Conclusions and relevance Despite the increase in the use of hospice care in recent decades, racial disparities in the use of hospice remain, especially for noncancer deaths. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,212 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Random-effects models revealed small but statistically significant effects with better psychological well-being in African American caregivers compared with white caregivers in both population-based (d = -0.22) and convenience sample studies (d = -0.21). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MCI prevalence varied among Hispanic/Latino backgrounds, but not as widely as reported in the previous studies. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,377 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The cohort sample included 5058 beneficiaries with dementia (mean [SD] age, 85.5 [8.0] years; 3038 women [60.1%]; 809 [16.0%] non-Hispanic Black, 357 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 3892 non-Hispanic White respondents [76.9%]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,058 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
AADAPt participants had risk factors for developing dementia in future, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, but also reported protective factors such as high social engagement. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 177 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 243 participants were enrolled, 81 of which had a recent ischemic stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 243 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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.
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 →