28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Our random 20% sample included 848,303 fee-for-service Medicare decedents (mean age, 82.3 years; 57.9% female, 88.1% white). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 270,202 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 44 844 patients invited to the APT Webstudy, the mean (SD) age was 64.7 (10.1) years, 25 447 (56.8%) were women, 25 044 (55.8%) had Medicaid insurance, 11 347 (25.3%) were Hispanic/Latino, 9526 (21.2%) were non-Hispanic Asian, 6044 (13.5%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 12 109 (27%) were non-Hispanic White. 2 key findings →
Participants: 844 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Survey-based cognitive tests and claims-based dementia diagnosis yielded equal prevalence estimates, yet only half were identified by both measures. 4 key findings →
Participants: 10,450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four states have clinician reporting mandates, 14 have mandates requiring drivers to self-report dementia diagnoses, and 32 states and the District of Columbia do not have explicit requirements. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 35 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 31 028 older adults in MEPS, 5184 (10%) were African American; 146 (<1%) American Indian or Alaska Native; 1043 (3%) Asian (Indian, Chinese, or Filipino); 5346 (10%) Latino; 690 (2%) Other Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander; and 18 617 (75%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant research gaps remain. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results highlight the need to increase the overall detection rates of MCI and of dementia particularly in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
HRU and payments were overall similar between A4 and LEARN Medicare. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 367 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cohort study examines rates of new diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementias among beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage plans vs traditional Medicare from 2016 through 2020. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Secondary outcomes included plan- and county-level factors associated with offering this benefit in 2025, estimated using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression with county-level random intercepts. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The costs of dementia fall on families, highlighting limited policy and work supports. 2 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
According to the National Institute on Aging (NIA), there are more than 70 associated genes or genetic areas associated with Alzheimer’s when 20 years ago, we knew of only four (Hodes, 2022). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 42 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Current annual replacement cost of unpaid family care is between $96 and $182 billion, 44% of which is accounted for by dementia caregiving. 1 key finding →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Medicare annual wellness visit-a preventive care visit free to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part B-requires detection of cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results project substantial cost savings from implementing a blood test for AD pathology within the diagnostic pathway based on modeling results, which future research should confirm with actual data. 4 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Approximately half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), a private plan alternative to traditional Medicare (TM). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
< 0.0001) were significantly higher for the MCI cohort. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Burden of chronic intravenous treatments exceed the gross medical and social care cost savings and value of caregiver benefit. 3 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among a matched sample of 15,410,030 beneficiaries, accounting for both provider and patient characteristics, the incident dementia diagnosis rate was 0.11 percentage points lower for MA beneficiaries compared to TM beneficiaries attributed to the same PCP. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Structural brain imaging is guideline-recommended for cases with newly diagnosed cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,095,947 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Differences in system‐level factors such as access to dementia specialists is a contributing factor to differences in diagnosis rates in MA and TM. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reintroduced Alzheimer's disease and related dementias to its risk-adjustment payment model for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Nearly 7 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia (ADRD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found notable differences in socio‐demographic and clinical characteristics, and utilization patterns in the year prior to death between decedents with dementia who were hospitalized in the last 30 days of life vs. those who were not. 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,299 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Spending at end of life (EOL) accounts for a large and growing share of healthcare expenditures in the US, and often reflects aggressive care with questionable value for dying patients. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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 →