Comorbidity associated with parkinsonism is an under-recognized contribution to higher resource use and expenditures. 4 key findings →
Participants: 791 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.
Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD were at a higher risk of PAHs for certain uncontrolled comorbidities and incurred higher Medicare expenditures compared with matched controls without dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Having an exam reflects multiple factors. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reimbursement of amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET) is lagging due to the lack of definitive evidence on its clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the included 3 515 329 Medicare fee-for-service decedents, when adjusted for age and sex, the percentage of older decedents with an ADRD diagnosis increased from 34.7% in 2004 to 47.2% in 2017. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The incremental cost of the lecanemab group compared to the aducanumab group was $30,018.97, with an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.25, resulting in an ICER of $121,678.49 per QALY gained. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Healthcare costs are already elevated in early subjective and objective cognitive impairment, driven by formal and informal care. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Most patients who enter hospice care do so late in the course of their terminal illnesses. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
Significant research gaps remain. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Frontotemporal dementia with parkinsonism, chromosome 17 type (FTDP-17) is caused by mutations in the tau gene, and the signature lesions of FTDP-17 are filamentous tau inclusions. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 32 796 872 Medicare beneficiaries in the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 74.0 (12.5) years and included 18 228 513 females (55.6%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From both commercial and Medicare Advantage perspectives, mirabegron was the most clinically effective treatment, while oxybutynin was the least expensive. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.041). Socioeconomic status and residential area are associated with long-term survival in patients with EOD. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,825 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the 13 604 086 traditional Medicare beneficiaries included in the study (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [7.7] years; 60.4% women), 27.7% had a diagnosis of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Medicare Advantage (MA) cares for an increasing proportion of traditional Medicare (TM) patients although, the association of MA on low-value care among hospitalized patients is uncertain. 3 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 147,153 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this cross-sectional study of the Medicare population with acute and postacute care use, beneficiaries with ADRD had increasing enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program, proportional to the growth in overall enrollment, but their disenrollment from Medicare Advantage in the following year remained higher compared with beneficiaries without ADRD. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Conventional cost estimates, which do not consider unpaid caregiver burden and patient productivity loss, significantly underestimate the total burden of AD. 3 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
HRU and payments were overall similar between A4 and LEARN Medicare. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 367 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Several studies have shown that cognitive intervention may be beneficial for people with Alzheimer disease (AD), but literature reviews conducted so far, have yielded mixed and inconclusive results. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia is a leading cause of death in the United States. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cohort study examines rates of new diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementias among beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage plans vs traditional Medicare from 2016 through 2020. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
50/100
Of enrollees, 15.9% entered the gap, 2.6% within the first 180 days; among gap enterers, only 6.7% exited again. 5 key findings →
Participants: 287,713 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Secondary outcomes included plan- and county-level factors associated with offering this benefit in 2025, estimated using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression with county-level random intercepts. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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.
- Costs, Staffing, and Services of Assisted Living in the United States: A Literature Review
- [O5–03–03]: LEVERAGING MEDICARE CLAIMS TO CHARACTERIZE DIAGNOSTIC PATHWAYS IN ALZHEIMER's DISEASE
- Predictions of Alzheimer's disease treatment and care costs in European countries
- Identifying Medicare beneficiaries with dementia
- Comparison of prior authorization across insurers: cross sectional evidence from Medicare Advantage
- Heterogeneous responses to risk-adjustment reform: evidence from dementia diagnosis in Medicare Advantage
- A Cost-Minimization Analysis of Teleconsultation Versus In-Person Care for Chronic Diseases and Rehabilitation in Medically Underserved Areas of South Korea
- The cost of inaction on physical inactivity to public health-care systems: a population-attributable fraction analysis
- Identifying Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia using home health OASIS assessments
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 →