Earlier diagnosis increases total expenditures but improves care and cost allocation. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among 10,666 patients (mean age 76.6 years; 35% female; 70% White, 21% Black), phenotype distribution was: A, 9.4%; B, 7.1%; C, 50.7%; D, 32.7%. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 824 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In fixed-effects panel models that accounted for spending persistence, lagged DALYs were not statistically associated with subsequent spending. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
POINTER reported a modest structured-versus-self-guided difference in the annual rate of global cognitive change. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 399 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for lecanemab versus standard of care were €296,506 per QALY gained, and €371,299 per QALY for donanemab, from the HSE payer perspective under HIQA guidelines. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Default thresholds yielded 20–23% precision with 94– 100% recall—unacceptable for caregiver-facing alerts. 5 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
GCC countries are experiencing a rapid demographic transition. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Randomisation: Allocated 1 : 1 : 1 through Trials Unit, independently of trial team. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 326 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For mild to moderately severe AD, the results of the study suggested that all three treatments were beneficial when assessed using cognitive outcome measures. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two hundred and sixty participants were randomised (173 intervention, 87 TAU). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The intention-to-treat analysis identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes [self-reported quality of life in Alzheimer's disease: mean difference 0.07, standard error (SE) 0.65; F = 0.48; p = 0.53]. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 488 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Social isolation and loneliness are associated with significant negative impacts on mental and physical health, including heart disease, stroke, depression, cancer, and dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Medicare and Medicaid provide health coverage to millions of Americans, including older adults, people with disabilities, low-income families, children, and individuals with complex medical and social needs. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Information technology is bringing fundamental changes to many U.S. industries. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CMS's national policy covers FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (such as lecanemab and donanemab) for Medicare patients with a documented diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or mild Alzheimer's dementia and confirmed amyloid pathology, under a framework called 'Coverage with Evidence Development.' 3 key findings →
Design: coverage determination
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
9/100
Some individuals who are DE receive full Medicaid coverage, whereas others only receive partial coverage, which does not cover hearing, vision, dental, or long-term care.1 Individuals who are DE tend to be medically complicated, often with 4 or more diagnoses, and many with chronic neurologic disorders (eg, poststroke, spinal cord injury, and multiple sclerosis) with or without mental (eg, retardation and dementia) or psychological disorders; in fact, recent estimates suggest that 40% to 50% of DE enrollees are disabled. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 27,380 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.
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 27,380 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 →