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
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
With the rapid expansion of the aging population, the burden of Alzheimer's disease related dementias (ADRD) is anticipated to increase in racialized and minoritized groups who are at disproportionately higher risk. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From 2010 to 2016, the incidence and prevalence rates of LBD among Medicare beneficiaries ranged from 0.21%-0.18% and 0.90%-0.83%, respectively. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 439,760 HCV patients, the incidence rate of ADRD was higher in patients with periodontal diseases compared to those without (10.84% versus 9.26%, p < 0.001), and those with periodontal disease developed ADRD earlier compared to those without periodontal disease (13.99 versus 21.60 months, p < 0.001). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION The Dementia DataHub (DDH) reports U.S. dementia prevalence and incidence from Medicare data. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 4 451 200 beneficiaries met inclusion criteria; 3 805 718 (85.5%) received eye care during the study period, and 391 556 (8.8%) had diagnosed dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Better diagnostic tools at initial evaluation may reduce unnecessary delays in access to treatment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
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
Despite the limitation of a cross-sectional design, our initial findings suggest that there is a strong association between medical comorbidity and cognitive status in AD. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In 2019, the global VSL-based economic burden of ADRDs was an estimated $2.8 trillion. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
China's population has rapidly aged over the recent decades of social and economic development as neurodegenerative disorders have proliferated, especially Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Revised algorithms for dementia diagnosis using Medicare administrative data have reasonable accuracy for research purposes, but investigators should be cognizant of the tradeoffs in accuracy among the approaches they consider. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Earlier treatment leads to a small delay in institutionalization among AD patients, resulting in significant costs savings to Medicaid. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals from minoritized racial/ethnic groups face a disproportionate burden of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The burden of neurological disease is increasing globally. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older adults classified with dementia were more likely to drop out of the labor force and become poor than similar older adults without dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a major health concern in society, particularly in the aging population. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During follow up (mean 11.1 years), 13% of Veterans developed dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Compared to White participants, Black, Hispanic, and Asian participants reported taking fewer total medications (incidence rate ratio [IRR] ± standard error[SE] = 0.903 ± 0.017, 0.875 ± 0.021, and 0.912 ± 0.041, respectively, all p < 0.01). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Washington University School of Medicine Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center's "African American Participation in Alzheimer Disease Research: Effective Strategies" Workshop convened to address a major limitation of the ongoing scientific progress regarding Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD): participants in most ADRD research programs overwhelmingly have been limited to non-Hispanic white persons, thus precluding knowledge as to how ADRD may be represented in non-white individuals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Significant disparities in symptom severity reported by Alzheimer's caretakers were observed among the racial groups analyzed. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overly restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria can reduce generalizability, slow enrollment, and disproportionately exclude historically underrepresented populations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients had a mean age of 70.4 (±6.6) years and 97.8% were men. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Participants indicated skepticism regarding the use of precision medicine in their communities. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
10 of the 267 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.
- Potentially avoidable hospitalizations among Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders
- Estimated Annual Spending on Aducanumab in the US Medicare Program
- Risk of dementia in peritoneal dialysis patients compared with hemodialysis patients
- Association between Internet Use for Health Information and Self-reported Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosis among Older Adults in the United States: Racial and Gender Disparities
- Long-term cost-effectiveness of a more accurate diagnostic work-up for dementia
- Population-based stroke and dementia incidence trends: Age and sex variations
- Ethnic and racial influences on blood biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review
- Alzheimer's disease medication use and adherence patterns by race and ethnicity
- Association Between Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Decline in Function, Cognition, and Mental Health After Critical Illness Among Older Adults : A Cohort Study
- Predictors of falls in older adults with and without dementia
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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 →