30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The sample included 47 100 Medicare beneficiaries (25 900 women [54.9%]; mean [SD] age, 72.2 [11.4] years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 47 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 454,508 beneficiaries diagnosed with ADRD in 2017, 250,837 (55%) were in TM and 203,671 (45%) in MA. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ADRD prevalence was 5.5%. A total of 25,278 individuals had an incident ADRD code (rate: 1.2%) over the study period-nearly half during a hospital-based encounter. 5 key findings →
Participants: 25,278 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
TM was associated with higher odds of 30-day readmission (OR = 1.07 [CI: 1.02 to 1.12]) and frequent hospitalizations (OR = 1.10 [CI: 1.06 to 1.14]) compared to MA. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 36,656 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four states have clinician reporting mandates, 14 have mandates requiring drivers to self-report dementia diagnoses, and 32 states and the District of Columbia do not have explicit requirements. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 35 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For VA and Medicare cohorts, dementia diagnosis was absent in 88.7% and 80.5%, respectively, of follow-up encounters in the other system. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 68,092 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 60 000 869 beneficiaries included (50 853 806 aged 65 years or older [84.8%]; 32 567 891 female [54.3%]; 5 555 571 Hispanic [9.3%]; 6 318 194 non-Hispanic Black [10.5%]; 44 384 980 non-Hispanic White [74.0%]), there were 4 312 496 (7.2%) with highly likely ADRD, 1 124 080 (1.9%) with likely ADRD, and 2 572 176 (4.3%) with possible ADRD, totaling more than 8.0 million with diagnostic evidence of at least possible ADRD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Analysis included a total of 121 145 patients in non-D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 173 662 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 81.8 [7.8] years; 122 565 female [70.6%]; 6078 Asian [3.5%], 34 150 Black [19.7%], 37 580 Hispanic [21.6%], 95 854 White [55.2%]) and 78 166 patients in D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 122 681 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [8.0] years; 87 329 female [71.2%]; 10 530 Asian [8.6%], 33 280 Black [27.1%], 43 294 Hispanic [35.3%], 35 577 White [29.0%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 121 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 32 796 872 Medicare beneficiaries in the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 74.0 (12.5) years and included 18 228 513 females (55.6%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Analyses demonstrated that criteria regarding cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, hearing impairment, and sedentary lifestyle were associated with relatively high participant diversity, while gastro-intestinal/liver disease, motivation to participate, and language proficiency criteria were associated with relatively little diversity. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this cross-sectional study of the Medicare population with acute and postacute care use, beneficiaries with ADRD had increasing enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program, proportional to the growth in overall enrollment, but their disenrollment from Medicare Advantage in the following year remained higher compared with beneficiaries without ADRD. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cohort study examines rates of new diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementias among beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage plans vs traditional Medicare from 2016 through 2020. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is a clinical diagnosis without curative treatment. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 13,312 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found that a larger share of Hispanic Medicare residents that are admitted to nursing homes have ADRD compared with African American and White beneficiaries. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,302,099 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The newly diagnosed ADRD and new AChEI users cohorts included 861,727 and 395,319 patients, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 861,727 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of the 508 eligible MA enrollees, mean age was 82.8 (SD = 7.2) years, 81% were female, and 49% were non-Latino White; 62 participants (12%) were classified as having dementia by the cohort assessment. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The most important predictors of having a diagnosis of ADRD by the start of care OASIS assessment were a prior discharge diagnosis of ADRD among those admitted from an inpatient setting, and frequently exhibiting symptoms of confusion. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals living with dementia often have limited capacity to express their care preferences at the final stage of life, and therefore, are at risk of receiving end-of-life care that may not align with their preferences.1 While most people prefer to be at home in their final days of life,2 research has shown that individuals with dementia are less likely to die in a home or community setting compared to those without dementia.3, 4 Studies also suggest that the percentage of individuals with dementia who died in a home or community setting has been increasing over time.5, 6 This study sought to update the literature by examining the association between dementia status and site of death, and by comparing the trends in site of death between decedents with and without dementia using recent national data. 5 key findings →
Participants: 813,213 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among TM enrollees, prevalence of dementia was lower by 4% points in 2014 (9.0%, 95%CI: 7.8%, 9.3%) compared to 2000 (13.0%, 95%CI: 12%, 14%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18,381 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 6158 person-waves with a claims-based dementia diagnosis from 3278 PWPD (3134 [50.9%] aged 65-84 years; 4282 [69.5%] female; 1176 [19.1%] non-Hispanic Black, 617 [10.0%] Hispanic, and 4256 [69.1%] non-Hispanic White), the adjusted proportion not reporting their diagnosis was 42% (95% CI, 40%-43%) among all respondents and 67% (95% CI, 64%-69%) among self-respondents. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
388,899 deaths were included. Most people died in care homes (55.3%) or hospitals (39.6%). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The odds of the occurrence and of a greater severity of dementia were higher in 2010/2011 than in 2004/2005. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Approximately half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), a private plan alternative to traditional Medicare (TM). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study included 2,284,175 FFS Medicare beneficiaries with an ADRD diagnosis in 2017. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,284,175 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Discussions revealed that people were generally supportive of this type of research, provided they gave informed consent and that devices were discreet, comfortable and easy to use. 4 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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