The value of screening for cognitive impairment, including dementia and Alzheimer's disease, has been debated for decades. 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.
Alzheimer's disease is the seventh leading cause of all deaths in the United States and the fifth leading cause of death in Americans older than the age of 65 years. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As the U.S. population ages, the burden of neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease, will increase substantially. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cost estimates did not differ significantly between CN and MCI. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent studies have been cautiously optimistic about declining trends in dementia prevalence and incidence. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia poses a substantial additional burden to the German social security system, with the long-term care sector being more seriously challenged than the health care sector. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides evidence that the increase in dementia-free life years went together with an absolute compression of life years with dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We examine a recent dispute regarding the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) refusal to unconditionally pay for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for Medicare beneficiaries being assessed for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia's five-year incremental cost to the traditional Medicare program is approximately $15 700 per patient, nearly half of which is incurred in the first year after diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia and fragility fractures are two conditions that pose significant morbidity and mortality to the elderly population. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The costs of AD were estimated to be from around 91 billion RMB in 2010 to 332 billion in 2050. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study found that 40% of deceased beneficiaries have Alzheimer disease or unspecified dementia diagnoses in their claims history. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As Americans increase life expectancies, one disease that has captured federal attention is Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
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
Dementia substantially increases lifetime costs of care. 1 key finding →
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
This article examines transitions between the community and nursing homes among the private pay and the Medicaid eligible older (65+) persons. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Over the past two decades the collaborative care model within primary care has proved to be effective in improving care quality, efficiency, and outcomes for older adults suffering from dementia and depression. 5 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
As the US elderly population continues to expand rapidly, Alzheimer's disease poses a major and increasing public health challenge, and older African Americans may be disproportionately burdened by the disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An estimated four million individuals in the United States have Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits for people with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders are of particular concern because many of these patients are physically and mentally frail, and the care delivered in these settings is costly. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The new services would cost around pound sterling 220 million extra per year nationally in England. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study explores whether nursing home residents with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) are affected differently by facility-level risk factors of ambulatory care-sensitive (ACS) conditions, a measure of timely access to medical care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
9 of the 267 studies in this tag that have a study page, 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.
- Economic Burden of Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review
- Racial and Ethnic Differences in Subjective Cognitive Decline - United States, 2015-2020
- Longitudinal analysis of dementia diagnosis and specialty care among racially diverse Medicare beneficiaries
- A Transferable Health Economic Evaluation Framework for Alzheimer’s Disease-Modifying Therapies
- Associations between specific autoimmune diseases and subsequent dementia: retrospective record-linkage cohort study, UK
- The Role and Future Potential of Radio, Podcasts, and YouTube in Influencing Awareness and Policy on Neurodegenerative Diseases in the Arab Gulf: A Focus on Oman, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia
- The Alzheimer’s disease Burden in China (ABC) study: protocol for a nationwide multicentre cross-sectional and prospective cohort study
- Evaluation of Medicare Claims Data as a Tool to Identify Dementia
- The worldwide societal costs of dementia: Estimates for 2009
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 →