Individuals with dementia live and frequently die in community settings. 1 key finding →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 524 Evidence: moderate
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.
Program participants (n = 382 men, n = 701 women; mean [SD] age, 82.10 [7.90] years; age range 54-101 years) were less likely to be admitted to a long-term care facility (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.59-0.61) than those not participating in the dementia care program (n = 759 men, n = 1407 women; mean [SD] age, 82.42 [8.50] years; age range, 34-103 years). 1 key finding →
Design: case-control study Participants: 382 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In total, 6,683 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 6,683 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
64/100
Successful discharge of beneficiaries with ADRD increased from 43.4% in 2007 to 53.9% in 2015 (average annual percent change (AAPC) = 2.1 (95% CI = 2.0-2.2)); those without ADRD also increased (from 59.1% to 63.6%, AAPC = 0.9 (95% CI = 0.7-1.1)) but not as fast as those with ADRD (P < .01). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,043 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
China bears a heavy burden of AD costs, which greatly change the estimates of AD cost worldwide. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,098 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Beneficiaries with dementia who had lower levels of continuity of care were younger, had a higher income, and had more comorbid medical conditions. 3 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Study results suggest that, after diagnosis, rural Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD spend more time in nursing homes and less time in the community, receive less home health care, and have shorter survival than their urban counterparts. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 561 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 3037 participants, a weighted 57.8% (raw count, 1345) were younger than 75 years, 56.2% (raw count, 1777) were women, and most (84.9% [raw count, 2268]) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,037 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study included 722 911 hospitalization episodes, of which 66 676 were related to patients with ADRD (mean [SD] age, 83.4 [8.6] years; 42 439 [63.6%] female) and 656 235 were related to patients without ADRD (mean [SD] age, 66.0 [15.4] years; 351 246 [53.5%] female). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 722 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Critical outcomes were rate of falls (number of falls per unit time) and number of fallers (risk of experiencing one or more falls). 5 key findings →
Participants: 104 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
Community dwellers with dementia were more likely than those without dementia to receive life-sustaining treatments in their last 90 days of life (advanced dementia: OR = 1.83 [1.42-2.35]; non-advanced dementia: OR = 1.16 [1.01-1.32]). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We aimed to conduct a cost-utility analysis of DREAMS START compared with treatment as usual (TAU). 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 377 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Parkinson disease (PD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder with largely unknown genetic mechanisms. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study showed that some deficits on IC domains, as measured by simple screening tests and questions, can be associated with higher healthcare costs. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 442 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, hospice care in NHs does not appear to increase government expenditures. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,774 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with 2000, the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for the increase in NIV use was 2.63 (95% CI, 2.46-2.82; % receipt: 0.8% vs 2.0%) for 2005 and 11.84 (95% CI, 11.11-12.61; % receipt: 0.8% vs 7.1%) for 2017. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hospice enrollment results in lower combined Medicare/Medicaid expenditures in the last month of life, particularly among short-stay NH residents. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,774 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides a comprehensive estimate of the excess costs that result from providing informal dementia care in the community. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,043 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Underclassification of dementia from claims records can be partially remedied by increasing the period during which claims are compiled, but additional diagnostic sources will likely be needed to increase prevalence counts closer to 100% of true cases. 2 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 4,166 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
61/100
This modeling study projects that the financial toll of Alzheimer's and related dementias will grow very unevenly by race and ethnicity in the US. 4 key findings →
Design: modelling Participants: 31,028 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neither targeted lecanemab treatment nor treatment unrestricted by APOE ε4 genotype is cost-effective vs SoC alone for patients with MCI or mild dementia due to AD. 2 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The overall age and sex standardized incidence decreased between 2015 and 2021 from 3.5% to 2.8%. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APPLE-Tree has a high probability of being cost-effective for a 1-point NTB gain, a difference previously associated with a three-fold reduction in 5-year dementia risk. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 746 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From across this tag
9 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 9. The same 9 appear here every time.
- Identification of cognitively impaired patients at risk for development of Alzheimer’s disease dementia: an analysis of US Medicare claims data
- Antihypertensive Medication Class and Incident Alzheimers Disease and Related Dementias: External Replication Across Two Independent Healthcare Data Sources-the Vanderbilt EHR Synthetic Derivative and US Medicare Claims
- Function and regulation of Dyrk1A: towards understanding Down syndrome
- The Costs of Dementia From the Societal Perspective: Is Care Provided in the Community Really Cheaper Than Nursing Home Care?
- Hypnotics should not be considered for the initial treatment of chronic insomnia. Con
- Medicare expenditures attributable to dementia
- Microglia regulation of central nervous system myelin health and regeneration
- Glucose regulation, cognition, and brain MRI in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review
- A comprehensive review/expert statement on environmental risk factors of cardiovascular disease
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 →