Previous studies have shown that AD-related costs are mainly driven by long-term informal care. 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.
In fixed-effects panel models that accounted for spending persistence, lagged DALYs were not statistically associated with subsequent spending. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
POINTER reported a modest structured-versus-self-guided difference in the annual rate of global cognitive change. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 399 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for lecanemab versus standard of care were €296,506 per QALY gained, and €371,299 per QALY for donanemab, from the HSE payer perspective under HIQA guidelines. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sociodemographic and clinical variables routinely recorded in PC EHRs may contribute to dementia identification. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We used the September 2013 age-based rollout of the live-attenuated shingles vaccine in England as a natural experiment to estimate the effect of vaccine eligibility on shingles and dementia diagnoses in linked hospital records. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Functional–behavioral subtypes can be identified in hospitalized AD patients, supporting multidimensional risk stratification and individualized care planning. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 118 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is variably recorded across routine datasets, and the setting in which dementia is first recorded identifies groups with markedly different prognosis. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 133,407 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
EOD incidence peaked at 4-5% among beneficiaries with and without cancer. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia risk may be increased among people with HIV with certain cancers, including AIDS-defining cancers. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
GCC countries are experiencing a rapid demographic transition. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between 1979 and 2023, AD caused 2,430,795 deaths in U.S. adults. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The dynamics of Alzheimer’s disease spread in aging groups of population are described using an Inflow-Outflow Model. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Retirement timing alone showed limited association with later-life dementia risk, whereas sustained part-time employment and disability-related trajectories were more strongly associated with dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Participants: 13,879 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Risk prediction in Alzheimer disease can guide follow-up, biomarker testing, trial referral, and prognostic counseling. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,002 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.
- Alzheimer's disease in African Americans: risk factors and challenges for the future
- Referral Sources Across Racial and Ethnic Groups at Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers
- Comparison of dementia risk after age 50 between individuals with and without HIV infection
- Association of Medicare bundled payment model with joint replacement care for people with dementia
- Transitions in long-term care
- Marital loss and risk of dementia: Do race and gender matter?
- Direct medical costs and source of cost differences across the spectrum of cognitive decline: a population-based study
- Characterization of Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease in an Older Population: Updated Incidence and Life Expectancy With and Without Dementia
- Deintensification of Diabetes Medications among Veterans at the End of Life in VA Nursing Homes
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 →