Eighty-one percent of eligible participants were not aware of a dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Median survival was much lower than in screened populations. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Existing evidence regarding diagnostic disclosure in dementia is both inconsistent and limited with the perspectives of people with dementia being largely neglected. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Total cost of care in early stage AD (CDR-SB ≤ 4) was 16,448€ (95% CI 13,722-19,716) annually. 5 key findings →
Participants: 231 Evidence: low
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
The worldwide cost of dementia has increased by 34% (18% in fixed prices) between 2005 and 2009. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ADODs will cost the world economy 14 513 billion international dollars (INT$, measured in the base year 2020; 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 12 106-17 778) from 2020 to 2050, equivalent to 0·421% (95% UI 0·351-0·515) of annual global GDP. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Patients with mild AD had higher total costs, patient medical costs, patient social care costs, and family caregiver informal care costs than did patients with MCI; however, only patient medical costs were significantly different (p = 0.022). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) extracts a heavy societal toll. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Worldwide costs for dementia are enormous, and informal care constitutes a major cost component, in particular in less developed regions. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings indicate that the early diagnosis and treatment of AD are not only socially desirable in terms of increasing economic efficiency, but also fiscally attractive from both state and federal perspectives. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
38/100
Care of individuals with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) poses special challenges. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Due to the rapid increase of the number in people with dementia, social costs of dementia are also expected to rise. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Frequency of prospective memory and retrospective memory failures was rated on a 16-item questionnaire by 862 volunteers, from five groups: patients with Alzheimer Disease (rated by carers), carers of Alzheimer Disease patients, elderly, young, and a group of married couples. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study examines total formal and informal care costs attributable to Alzheimer's disease for persons living in the community and in institutions. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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