alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Research

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 29 studies with an author at Harvard University (US) · tagged Policy (page 1 of 2) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 29 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Quantifying diagnostic signal decay in dementia: a national study of Medicare hospitalization data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-11-01

Non-specific codes were most common. Alzheimer's and vascular dementia codes showed high regional variability. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,016 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The impacts of air pollution on mortality and hospital readmission among Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias: a national retrospective cohort study in the USA

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The Lancet Planetary Health 2025-02-01

In both the mortality and readmission cohorts we found significant associations with each pollutant. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 118 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

State Department of Motor Vehicles Reporting Mandates of Dementia Diagnoses and Dementia Underdiagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-04-25

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

Performance of Claims-based Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias Algorithms in Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service Populations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series A 2026-09-17

Overall, both algorithms demonstrated comparable performance in MA and FFS populations, with high specificity (>97.9%) and negative predictive value [NPV] (>92.9%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,018 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Expected and diagnosed rates of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in the U.S. Medicare population: observational analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2023-07-22

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

Disparities in Early Lecanemab Uptake Among US Medicare Beneficiaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-05-15

This cross-sectional study examines lecanemeb update among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment and evaluates whether there are disparities among potentially eligible patients. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Epidemiology of Homebound Population Among Beneficiaries of a Large National Medicare Advantage Plan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Annals of Internal Medicine 2024-08-12

In 2022, the overall prevalence of homebound beneficiaries was 22.0% (8.4% of beneficiaries were homebound, and 13.6% were semihomebound). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Adapting prescribing criteria for amyloid‐targeted antibodies for adults with Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-03-13

Prior authorization criteria for Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved immunotherapeutics, among the class of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), established by state drug formulary committees, are tailored for adults with late-onset Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

“It may cost you your money, it costs you your life”: a framework for financial hardship in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-07-25

Among 52 participants recruited, 27 were former caregivers, 16 were current caregivers, and nine were persons with dementia; experiences reflected Alzheimer's (n = 18), sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob (n = 12), Lewy body (n = 7), and other dementias (n = 15). 5 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Selective translational control of the Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein transcript by iron regulatory protein-1

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. The Journal of biological chemistry 2010-06-17

Iron influx increases the translation of the Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein (APP) via an iron-responsive element (IRE) RNA stem loop in its 5'-untranslated region. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The role of lifestyle medicine in menopausal health: a review of non-pharmacologic interventions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Climacteric 2025-09-03

Lifestyle medicine interventions were associated with reductions in vasomotor symptoms, improved sleep quality, enhanced mental well-being, healthier weight regulation, and reduced cardiometabolic and osteoporosis risk. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Evaluating The Accuracy Of Medicare Risk Adjustment For Alzheimer’s Disease And Related Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Health Affairs 2022-09-01

In 2020 Medicare reintroduced Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs) to risk-adjust Medicare Advantage and accountable care organization (ACO) payments. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Nationwide Availability of and Enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans With Exclusively Aligned Enrollment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. JAMA Health Forum 2024-10-18

Of 2 197 732 beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs in 2021, 881 736 (40.1%) were living in counties with aligned enrollment available and 251 305 (11.4%) enrolled. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Antipsychotic prescribing patterns in a Medicare Advantage population of older individuals with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of Mental Health 2016-11-12

Of the 8688 individuals in the Medicare Advantage population with a dementia diagnosis, 1061 (12.2%) received an antipsychotic medication. 4 key findings →

Participants: 8,688 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Performance of Claims-based Dementia Algorithms in Medicare Fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage Populations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Claims-based dementia algorithms have not been evaluated in the Medicare Advantage (MA) population, a critical gap given the rapid growth of MA and concerns about data completeness. 3 key findings →

Participants: 5,058 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Requesting That Delirium Achieve Parity With Acute Encephalopathy in the MS-DRG System

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry 2024-03-20

Since 2007, the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups classification system has favored billing codes for acute encephalopathy over delirium codes in determining hospital reimbursement and several quality-of-care value metrics, despite broad overlap between these sets of diagnostic codes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ Change the filters

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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed