alzhub.org
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.

Research

30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 226–250 of 266 studies (page 10 of 11) · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 266 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 266 studies tagged economic — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,054 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

The African American Dementia and Aging Project (AADAPt): An Oregon-based Longitudinal Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences 2024-06-03

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. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 177 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Subjective Cognitive Decline - United States, 2015-2020

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 2023-03-10

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD), the self-reported experience of worsening or more frequent memory loss or confusion, might be a symptom of early-stage dementia or future serious cognitive decline such as Alzheimer disease* or a related dementia (ADRD) (1). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Budget Impact Analysis of Disease-Modifying Therapies for Alzheimer’s Disease in Ireland: A Model-Based Analysis

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2025-12-30

These therapies require complex diagnostic workup and safety monitoring, raising significant budget impact concerns for healthcare payers. 2 key findings →

Participants: 11,568 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A Simulation-Based Discrete Choice Experiment Framework for Alzheimer’s Disease-Modifying Therapy Implementation: Methodology and Interactive Decision Support Tool

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-04-14

Under calibrated simulation parameters, slowing of cognitive decline emerged as the most important attribute (relative importance 25.7%), followed by annual cost (17.6%), ARIA risk (15.4%), and travel to treatment centre (13.0%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

PREFER-DMT: A Discrete Choice Experiment Framework for Eliciting Stakeholder Preferences on Disease-Modifying Therapy Implementation in European Healthcare Systems

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-04-14

Simulation-based validation demonstrates the framework’s analytical capability. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The Effect of Noncontingent Monetary Incentives in Recruitment Letters on Research Enrollment of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia Caregiving Dyads: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) Randomized Controlled Trial

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-10-14

In this trial, $5 and $25 noncontingent monetary incentives included in mailed recruitment letters did not produce a detectable improvement in response among ADRD caregiving dyads. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 103 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Research attitudes mediate the association between educational attainment and willingness to participate in Alzheimer’s disease research beyond Alzheimer’s disease knowledge

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-15

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION This study examined the extent to which educational attainment, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) knowledge, and research attitudes are associated with willingness to participate in AD research, and whether AD knowledge and research attitudes mediate associations between educational attainment and willingness to participate. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Mobile Clinics for Brain Health Equity: A Feasibility Study of Dementia Risk Reduction in Underserved Communities

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-30

Recruitment (88.0%) and protocol fidelity (100%) met or exceeded prespecified progression criteria, whereas retention and follow-up data availability were 59.1% (13/22), slightly below the predefined 60% criterion. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Modifiable Risk Factors for Dementia across the Europe: regional comparative studyusing SHARE data

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-04

Our findings reveal marked geographic variation in dementia risk factors, highlighting the need for region-specific prevention strategies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 40,000 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The Role and Future Potential of Radio, Podcasts, and YouTube in Influencing Awareness and Policy on Neurodegenerative Diseases in the Arab Gulf: A Focus on Oman, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Preprints.org 2026-10-14

The increasing prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), especially Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, is a major public health concern in the Gulf countries (GCs) due to the rapid increase in life expectancy and population aging. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Association between urban green space coverage and incident Alzheimer’s disease among older adults in metropolitan South Korea: a population-based retrospective cohort study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-14

Higher UGS coverage was associated with a lower risk of incident AD among older adults in urban South Korea. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 95,822 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Association between Internet Use for Health Information and Self-reported Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosis among Older Adults in the United States: Racial and Gender Disparities

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-08-27

Internet use for health information was significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Patient-Reported Shared Decision-Making and Documented Advance Care Planning Among Adults With Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-10-19

Among adults with ADRD, high SDM was associated with greater ACP prevalence in unadjusted analyses, although the fully adjusted association was not statistically significant. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,635 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Death in People with Down syndrome: Mortality statistics and novel predictors in US Medicaid and Medicare enrolled adults

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-07-20

People with Down syndrome have higher age-specific mortality rates compared to the general population as well as peers with other intellectual and developmental disabilities. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 137,293 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Chart review and genetic validation of electronic medical record dementia diagnoses in VA: The impact of CMS data

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-07-17

We recommend using a broad (ADRD) algorithm without CMS or medication data, particularly for epidemiological studies or a strict AD algorithm including CMS and medication cases for genetic discovery of late-onset AD associations in VA EMR, and a strict AD algorithm without CMS data for applications focused solely on AD and sensitive to misspecification. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

From across this tag

8 of the 266 studies in this tag that have a study page, 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events