30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among 91,881 participants (mean age 59.3 at baseline, 55.0% female participants), 16,507 incident ADRD cases were identified from Medicare claims (1999-2016, mean follow-up 9.3 years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 91,881 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
1,901 participants completed the MoCA and 547 the HCAP. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,901 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among these, 85.5% were non-Hispanic (NH) white, 8% NH black, 4.34% Hispanic or Latino, 1.6% NH Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.3% NH American Indian or Alaska Native adults. 5 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 10,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Stigma negatively affects individuals with cognitive impairment and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 51 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This is the first report of incidence rate differences for dementia and AD in studies of 2 populations from nonindustrialized and industrialized countries using identical methods and the same group of investigators in both sites. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,459 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among those newly diagnosed, Black and Hispanic patients encountered higher total costs compared to White patients, and ADRD patients living in the most vulnerable areas experienced the highest total costs compared to patients living in other regions. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 742,175 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among subjects identified as having dementia by the prediction model, 43.5% to 50.2%, depending on the survey year, reported that they were informed of the dementia status by their physician. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,686 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Generally, Blacks and Latinos reported higher prevalence of poor HRQOL compared with whites. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 10,886 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
AADAPt participants had risk factors for developing dementia in future, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, but also reported protective factors such as high social engagement. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 177 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Included in the analysis were 48,330 participants across 46 ADRCs (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [10.5] years; 20,767 female [57%]; 4,138 Hispanic [8.6%]; 1,392 non-Hispanic Asian [2.9%]; 6,766 non-Hispanic Black [14%] individuals; and 676 individuals [1.4%] of other races. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 48,330 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two models comprising behavior change and psychological impact fit well for the total sample and the two racial groups. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 334 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
NPS were present in 95% in at least one time point. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The analytical sample size of the study was 2,068,937, including 9.9% Black, 82.7% White, and 7.4% Hispanic individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Outcomes for acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) treatment included (1) any new AChEI treatment during follow-up, and (2) persistence of treatment during follow-up categorized into: intermittent treatment (< 50% follow-ups reporting treatment), persistent (≥50% follow-ups), and always treated. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent studies have found that marital loss through divorce or widowhood is associated with a higher risk of dementia for older adults. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sociodemographic and health characteristics across ethnoracial groups included in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center sample (NACC) were compared to the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study (HRS). 4 key findings →
Participants: 36,639 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among newly diagnosed ADRD patients (n = 1299), 26% filled an ADRD prescription ≤90 days and 36% ≤365 days after diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,299 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As indicated by Cox regression modeling, dementia risk of low-educated individuals was not significantly different between ethnic groups but was related to having an APOE e4 allele (hazard ratio [HR] 1.89), depression (HR 1.67), stroke (HR 1.60), and smoking (HR 1.32). 3 key findings →
Participants: 819 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants indicated that they are concerned about cognitive decline, are willing to plan for their future care and cognitive testing, and articulated a desire for Tribally led long-term support services. 4 key findings →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Markers of lower socioeconomic status predict risk of developing incident AD. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When considering race/ethnicity, the presence of more vascular comorbidities drove greater vulnerability. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is often unrecognized and undocumented in private practice settings. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with Non-Hispanic White (NHW) adults, Non-White adults had a higher incidence of AD-specific (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 3.49) and all-cause dementia (HR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.36, 2.98). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 769 randomized dyads, 73% were spousal, 14% adult child, and 13% other dyads. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reactions to disclosure did not significantly differ among participant groups based on self-reported race and ethnicity. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →