27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The consequences of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) are well documented, but beyond the individual, family, and health system costs are implications for communities that are not well-studied. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MDD prevalence was consistently higher among women than men across all regions and age groups, ranging from 4.42%-5.11% in women versus 2.87%-3.41% in men. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Diet and specific nutritional factors, alone and in combination with other lifestyle approaches, have an important role in decreasing the risk for dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Health disparities in dementia care are amplified among aging multilingual communities relative to their monolingual English-speaking counterparts, as social determinants of health and significant gaps in culturally responsive practice can contribute to misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, and delays in intervention. 2 key findings →
Design: case report Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Based on the stakeholder responses from fifteen providers and twenty community members, there was strong consensus in the need for local brain health services. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
• Brain health depends on certain environmental resources of which socioeconomically disadvantaged people in particular are deprived. • Resource deprivation may increase dementia risk due to reduced attainment for deprived populations. • Improving attainment across the lifetime for disadvantaged individuals should be a public health priority for dementia prevention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The unprecedented rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent times is unparalleled in history.AI 1 seemingly possesses cognitive abilities that hitherto only humans could boast of -reason, an inimitable, embodied, and finite existence. 47Nonetheless, the ubiquitous abilities of AI can help to enhance treatment and care for PLWDs in 48 enabling early diagnosis, continuous monitoring and personalized support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The approval of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease demands a rethinking of cognitive screening. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants reported routine screening for cognitive impairment only in the context of the Medicare annual wellness visit and generally avoided routine screening because of limited treatment options to support patients, such as poor access to geriatrics/neuropsychiatric services. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia is a progressive condition that affects cognitive and functional abilities. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of this study identified important relationships between cognitive features in the ADAS-Cog and provide a clear example of the value of data-driven machine learning approaches in the identification of markers that indicate disease progression in dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the RUDAS scale is 0.8529. 5 key findings →
Participants: 87 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The moral authority of advance directives (ADs) in the context of persons living with dementia (PLWD) has sparked a multifaceted debate, encompassing concerns such as authenticity and the appropriate involvement of caregivers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Predictors of an AD dementia diagnosis included age (odds ratio [OR], 1.71) and use of antipsychotics (OR, 2.50) and hypertension medication (OR, 1.25). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Incident dementia diagnoses increased in MA relative to traditional Medicare, despite an overall downward trend in diagnosis rates. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Persons with dementia were significantly more likely to enter HHC directly from the community (60% vs. 37%, adjusted OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.50-1.53). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Dementia Datahub (https://dementiadatahub.org/) currently provides mapping, data reporting dashboards, system documentation, and public use files (available upon request) of statistics from the year 2020. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher densities of civic organizations were associated with lower county dementia incidence, while museums and recreational facilities were associated with lower prevalence and incidence. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From 1999 to 2004, the U.S. age-adjusted annual death rate per 100,000 for dementia was 628 in blacks and 647 in whites. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
fifty-five geriatricians responded. Ninety-one per cent were consultant physicians, and 71% were not involved in outpatient diagnostic services. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Unmet need for long-term care (LTC) could be associated with higher health care utilization and medical spending. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This reduction is likely a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have decreased overall diagnostic opportunities. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With one exception, the participants scored highest in their self-identified strongest language. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Key barriers included limited digital literacy, resistance to technology and privacy concerns, as well as competing organisational priorities, and inadequate technological infrastructure. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
10 of the 1,233 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 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →