The declining incidence of dementia in some countries, despite growing prevalence, is encouraging and urges further investigation. 2 key findings →
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.
Recovery rates are low, even among those with higher levels of pre-fracture functional status, and are worse for patients who are older, cognitively impaired, and who have multiple comorbidities. 3 key findings →
Participants: 733 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Utilization and costs for patients with AD were higher compared to controls and were substantially higher for patients with both AD and co-morbid diseases commonly targeted for disease management. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,366 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The burden of dementia in Korea is expected to considerably increase alongside the elderly population in the future. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 4505 respondents aged ≥70 years, 1750 (38.8%) had possible or probable dementia and 2755 (61.2%) had no dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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
Dementia research lacks appropriate representation of diverse groups who often face substantial adversity and greater risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared to non-Hispanic or Latino (NH) White participants, Hispanic or Latino (3.52 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.61, 4.42]); NH Asian (2.97 points, 95% CI: [1.71, 4.22]); and NH Black participants (2.79 points, 95% CI: [1.96, 3.63]) participants demonstrated higher levels of endorsement of the VPAI items at baseline. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a growing public health problem that disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans. 2 key findings →
Participants: 301 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When using ethnic group-specific norms, NP and functional abilities predicted diagnosis in both groups with no significant differences but BPS was only significant in Hispanics. 5 key findings →
Participants: 444 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
3,001,987 Medicare beneficiaries were identified, of which 8.2% had a dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 2 684 704 Fee-for-Service patients with Alzheimer dementia, 769 141 met all inclusion criteria; among these, 281 042 (36.5%) had agitation. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study evaluates whether patients enrolled in trials of aducanumab, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were representative of patients with dementia enrolled in Medicare by estimating the proportions of Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who would have been excluded from these trials. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 88 African Americans with cognitive impairment (mean = 10 years follow-up), Medicare claims identified dementia <2 years from cohort diagnosis in 55%; 27% were identified 2-9.9 years after cohort diagnosis, and in 18% there was either no claims diagnosis during the study period, or claims identified dementia 10+ years after cohort diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
46/100
Out of pocket expenditures by families (N = 182) of relatives with dementia residing in the community were examined. 3 key findings →
Participants: 182 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 12,764,487 weighted older adults with ADRD were included, with 34.60% of them using anti-dementia drugs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Efforts to delay onset of dementia, if successful, would likely benefit older adults of all ages. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,605 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, the quantity and quality of available evidence to inform best practices in recruitment, retention, and inclusion of underrepresented populations in ADRD research are low. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We linked Medicare claims data to information on 417 patients with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) to determine what proportion of them were identified as having Alzheimer's disease (AD) in Medicare claims records. 1 key finding →
Participants: 417 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mini-Cog screening by office staff is feasible in primary care practice and has measurable effects on physician behavior. 2 key findings →
Participants: 524 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The concomitant decline in stroke and dementia incidence rates may depict how successful stroke prevention has targeted shared risk factors of both conditions, especially at advanced ages where such risk factors are highly prevalent. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To estimate dementia incidence rates using Australian administrative datasets and compare the characteristics of people identified with dementia across different datasets. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The final cohort consisted of 91 302 Medicare beneficiaries with an ADRD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Disparities in incidence of NDD between Black and White beneficiaries narrowed by 0.37 per 100 person-years from 2014 to 2017. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At ages 50-54, between 79.0% (95% CI: 73.5, 84.5) and 87.6% (95% CI: 84.0, 91.2) of (non-Hispanic) Black, foreign-born Hispanic, and U.S.-born Hispanic women and men remain dual functional as compared with 90.4% (95% CI: 89.3, 91.4) and 91.4% (95% CI: 90.2, 92.5) of (non-Hispanic) White women and men, respectively. 5 key findings →
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.
- Vulnerable populations at risk of potentially avoidable hospitalizations: the case of nursing home residents with Alzheimer's disease
- High-Need Phenotypes in Medicare Beneficiaries: Drivers of Variation in Utilization and Outcomes
- Validation of Claims Algorithms to Identify Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias
- Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease-Related Dementias in African Americans: Focus on Caregivers
- Dependence Clusters in Alzheimer Disease and Medicare Expenditures: A Longitudinal Analysis From the Predictors Study
- Compression or expansion of dementia in Germany? An observational study of short-term trends in incidence and death rates of dementia between 2006/07 and 2009/10 based on German health insurance data
- Cognitive screening biases in a secondary prevention Alzheimer’s disease clinical trial
- Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review
- Poorer outcomes and greater healthcare costs for hospitalised older people with dementia and delirium: a retrospective cohort study
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 →