27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We combine the MAX data with Medicare claims to identify hospital admissions, our main outcome variable, and with state and county data on the percent of individuals receiving HCBS versus nursing home care. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
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
This study examines the difference in functional outcomes among Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) during a home health admission, which is unknown. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 81,735 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It was demonstrated that prevalence of polypharmacy, PIM, and PPO could be decreased by CGA including START/STOPP criteria in older adults. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The growth in hospice care for nursing home residents was associated with less aggressive care near death but at an overall increase in Medicare expenditures. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
One important challenge for global development is aging. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The AMPK/SIRT1/PGC-1α pathway represents a cornerstone target at the intersection of metabolism, aging, and disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Globally, approximately one in three of all adults suffer from multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We linked Medicare claims data to information on 417 patients with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) to determine what proportion of them were identified as having Alzheimer's disease (AD) in Medicare claims records. 1 key finding →
Participants: 417 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We observed significant increases in all-cause hospital admissions (2.53% in PD and 2.49% in AD/dementia) attributable to high PM2.5 exposure. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From 2010 to 2016, the incidence and prevalence rates of LBD among Medicare beneficiaries ranged from 0.21%-0.18% and 0.90%-0.83%, respectively. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 439,760 HCV patients, the incidence rate of ADRD was higher in patients with periodontal diseases compared to those without (10.84% versus 9.26%, p < 0.001), and those with periodontal disease developed ADRD earlier compared to those without periodontal disease (13.99 versus 21.60 months, p < 0.001). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All four interventions cost less and are more effective (i.e., cost savings) than usual care from a societal perspective. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Medicare Part D drug spending was substantial, increasing with dual-eligibility duration: $8732-$9107 among beneficiaries with full-year dual eligibility and exceeding $11 500 among those with 5+ chronic conditions. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,372,696 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
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
The benefits of expanding funding for Medicaid long-term care home and community-based services (HCBS) relative to institutional care are often taken as self-evident. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Down syndrome is a condition caused by trisomy of chromosome 21 and is the most common genetic cause of intellectual disability. 4 key findings →
Participants: 118,539 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Per-dyad mean cost savings at 12 months were $2 354 for those who received COPE with a mean difference-in-difference of -$6 667 versus HCBS alone (95% CI: -$15 473, $2 734; not statistically significant). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
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
This study examines the difference in functional outcomes among Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) during a home health admission, which is unknown. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 81,735 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 421,131 MA beneficiaries, telehealth use increased sharply in Q2 2020 for both ADRD and non-ADRD groups, peaking at 33.9 and 30.6% respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cancer is a leading cause of death in China, and its epidemiological profile has shifted markedly in recent years. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The National Dementia Workforce Study was designed to improve our understanding of the individuals and systems who care for people with dementia, but designing and implementing such a study is challenging due to the large number of patient care organizations, clinical and direct care roles, and locations in which care is provided. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
10 of the 705 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 →