Among newly diagnosed ADRD patients (n = 1299), 26% filled an ADRD prescription ≤90 days and 36% ≤365 days after diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,299 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The sample included 993 decedents with dementia (81.4% white; 11.0% black, 7.6% hispanic). 5 key findings →
Participants: 993 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Black and Hispanic older adults have significantly lower rates of ACP relative to Whites. 5 key findings →
Participants: 8,912 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most frequent cause of dementia, where the abnormal accumulation of beta-amyloid (Aβ) and tau lead to neurodegeneration as well as loss of cognitive, behavioral, and functional abilities. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 769 randomized dyads, 73% were spousal, 14% adult child, and 13% other dyads. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study aimed to explore racial/ethnic differences in the attitudes toward Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and dementia caregiving among midlife women who were family caregivers of persons living with AD (MWPLAD) in the U.S. and examine the associations of the attitudes to their health outcomes. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
46/100
Since the original description of amyloid-β plaques and tau tangles more than 100 years ago, these lesions have been considered the neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
Surprisingly, compared to White female caregivers, all the other groups were 37% (95% CI 0.41-0.95) to 71% (95% CI 0.15-0.56) less likely to have emotional burden. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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
Discrete-time hazard regression results show that sibling loss in mid-to-late life is associated with up to 54% higher risk for dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia are two of the most prevalent dementias that afflict the aging population in the United States (US). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A formal evaluation of the health equity impact of a new intervention is hardly ever performed as part of a health technology assessment to understand its value. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hispanics and Asians diagnosed with dementia had 40% lower mortality risk and African Americans had 13% lower mortality risk than Whites. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Health screening is an important component of health promotion programs, and countries have promoted general health screening targeting the prevention and early management of common chronic diseases. 5 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
- 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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