The total cost of disorders of the brain was estimated at €798 billion in 2010. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The trial occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 106 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mean annual costs for individuals with clinically diagnosed AD were SEK 99,906, SEK 290,972, SEK 479,524, and SEK 795,617 in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild, moderate, and severe AD. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort Participants: 95,853 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Worldwide costs of dementia are enormous and still inequitably distributed. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The huge costs of dementia worldwide place enormous strains on care systems and families alike.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study estimated the utilization and lifetime costs of formal care for AD dementia using longitudinal register data. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 20,366 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is receiving increasing attention from governments and politicians. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Worldwide costs of dementia are enormous and distributed inequitably. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our cost model revealed that brain disorders overall are much more costly than previously estimated constituting a major health economic challenge for Europe. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Single-cell RNA sequencing data generated with SmartSeq2 (≈8000 genes/cell) in 16 588 single cells isolated during atherosclerosis progression in Ldlr -/- Apob 100/100 mice with human-like plasma lipoproteins and from humans with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid plaques was clustered into multiple subtypes. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The estimated total annual costs of dementia in China increased from 0.9 billion United States dollars (US$) in 1990 to US$ 47.2 billion in 2010 and were predicted to reach US$ 69.0 billion in 2020 and US$ 114.2 billion in 2030. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The future price of lecanemab in European countries is unknown. 2 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Several minor changes were made to the RUD instrument to improve the accuracy and precision of the data while maintaining comparability with the original version and reflecting current medical practice. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Costs of care in patient with AD are high and related to dementia severity as well as presence of behavioural disturbances. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Reimbursement decisions for new Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatments are informed by economic evaluations. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
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
Dementia poses an on-going Canadian challenge due to an aging population, with cases projected to rise significantly by 2050. 4 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →