Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 265 studies (page 1 of 11) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 265 studies tagged economic — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Adults aged 65+ are at highest risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and prior to the distribution of vaccines in the U.S., were strongly advised to quarantine at home to reduce risk of infection. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 156 Evidence: high

Dementia Incidence, Burden and Cost of Care: A Filipino Community-Based Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100. Frontiers in public health 2021-05-14

The crude incidence rate was 16 (CI: 13-20) cases per 1,000 person-years (pyr) with 17 (CI: 12-21) per 1,000 pyr for females and 14 (CI: 9-21) per 1,000 pyr for males. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 748 Evidence: high

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

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

Stigma negatively affects individuals with cognitive impairment and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 51 Evidence: high

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

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

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Knowledge About One's Dementia Status

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020-04-13

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

Our sample included 3,361,950 Medicare enrollees with ADRD (2,156,995 women [64%]; mean [SD] age, 83 [8.0] years; 2,646,405 white [78%], 344,478 black [10%], 224,010 Hispanic [7%]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,361,950 Evidence: moderate

Screening for IC impairments identifies older adults at higher risk of incident frailty and incident IADL/ADL disability. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 759 Evidence: moderate

The prevalence and incidence of early-onset dementia among adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 12,648 Evidence: moderate

The African American Dementia and Aging Project: an Oregon-based longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Frontiers in dementia 2024-11-18

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

From across this tag

8 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 8. The same 8 appear here every time.

↑ Change the filters

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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed