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
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
These results suggest that prevalence of brain amyloid pathology differed, but that eligibility based on plasma was equally effective across racial and ethnic group members. 3 key findings →
Participants: 4,905 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The analysis of the comorbidities associated with an index disease (e.g., dementia) must not be exclusively based on prevalence rates, but rather on methodologies that allow the discovery of non-random associations between diseases. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 72,815 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
This study demonstrates that influenza vaccination is associated with reduced AD risk in a nationwide sample of US adults aged 65 and older. 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,356,479 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The associations with vascular dementia may be one component of a broader association between autoimmune diseases and vascular damage. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 827 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Receiving two types of vaccinations versus one type was associated with lower dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Participants: 80,070 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A cognitive symptom measure identified in discharge notes facilitated stratification of risk for dementia up to 8 years before diagnosis. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fall rates were higher among PLWD compared to persons without dementia (45.5% vs. 30.9%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,581 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance care planning (ACP) can help reduce end-of-life care challenges for persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia and their care partners. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,698 Evidence: low
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
The results should form the basis for future health policy decisions on the treatment of patients with multiple chronic diseases and also show the need to introduce new ways of providing long-term care to this population. 3 key findings →
Participants: 115,203 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study confirmed a number of previously reported risk factors for AD, but provided little support for others. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most caregivers (72.0%) favored BBBM for AD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 107 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
A total number of 450 participants (Mean age = 69.5 years; SD = 10.8) have been screened at different recruitment sites throughout the country, among whom 425 participants (94.4%) met the selection criteria. 2 key findings →
Participants: 450 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
PET participants lived longer in community (0.26 years, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.45) and overall (0.15, CI: 0.02 to 0.27), but did not have statistically different health insurance (€703, CI: -3974 to 5045) or total costs including institutionalization (-€8258, CI: -20,622 to 3377). 5 key findings →
Participants: 440 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Further, we do not know if ACP uptake is greater among those in worse health and with poorer prognoses. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Existing evidence regarding diagnostic disclosure in dementia is both inconsistent and limited with the perspectives of people with dementia being largely neglected. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review corroborates previous understanding that AD burden is high for both society and healthcare providers. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ascertainment of etiologic dementia subtype may inform hereditary risk and facilitate financial and care planning. 2 key findings →
Participants: 226,604 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hospitalised people with cognitive impairment experience significantly greater length of stay and when discharged to their usual residence are more likely to be readmitted to hospital within 28 days compared with those without cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Few studies have examined the disease burden of AD in commercial managed care settings. 3 key findings →
Participants: 4,450 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of the 286,350 residents in 2019 and the 273,601 in 2020 identified in these cohorts, approximately 31% had a diagnosis of ADRD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort 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
From across this tag
9 of the 265 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.
- The Value of Delaying Alzheimer's Disease Onset
- Is Cancer Protective for Subsequent Alzheimer's Disease Risk? Evidence From the Utah Population Database
- Modifiable Risk Factors for Dementia across the Europe: regional comparative studyusing SHARE data
- Healthcare costs and utilization for Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's
- Racial differences in knowledge and beliefs about Alzheimer disease
- 30-Day Emergency Department Revisit Rates among Older Adults with Documented Dementia
- Racial/ethnic differences in neuropsychiatric disturbances associated with incident dementia
- Medicare Beneficiary Factors Associated with Skilled Nursing Facility Lengths of Stay
- Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs for Newly Diagnosed Dementia-Related Psychosis
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 28,180 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.
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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →