3,001,987 Medicare beneficiaries were identified, of which 8.2% had a dementia diagnosis. 5 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.
Of 2 684 704 Fee-for-Service patients with Alzheimer dementia, 769 141 met all inclusion criteria; among these, 281 042 (36.5%) had agitation. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study evaluates whether patients enrolled in trials of aducanumab, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were representative of patients with dementia enrolled in Medicare by estimating the proportions of Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who would have been excluded from these trials. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 88 African Americans with cognitive impairment (mean = 10 years follow-up), Medicare claims identified dementia <2 years from cohort diagnosis in 55%; 27% were identified 2-9.9 years after cohort diagnosis, and in 18% there was either no claims diagnosis during the study period, or claims identified dementia 10+ years after cohort diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
46/100
Out of pocket expenditures by families (N = 182) of relatives with dementia residing in the community were examined. 3 key findings →
Participants: 182 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 12,764,487 weighted older adults with ADRD were included, with 34.60% of them using anti-dementia drugs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab provides clinical benefits but is unlikely to be cost-effective under current Australian thresholds. 3 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results project substantial cost savings from implementing a blood test for AD pathology within the diagnostic pathway based on modeling results, which future research should confirm with actual data. 4 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We linked Medicare claims data to information on 417 patients with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) to determine what proportion of them were identified as having Alzheimer's disease (AD) in Medicare claims records. 1 key finding →
Participants: 417 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Strong evidence has emerged recently for the concept that herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV1) is a major risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 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
All four interventions cost less and are more effective (i.e., cost savings) than usual care from a societal perspective. 4 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
Medicare Part D drug spending was substantial, increasing with dual-eligibility duration: $8732-$9107 among beneficiaries with full-year dual eligibility and exceeding $11 500 among those with 5+ chronic conditions. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,372,696 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Burden of chronic intravenous treatments exceed the gross medical and social care cost savings and value of caregiver benefit. 3 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
VBPs indicate how much 174 countries should be willing to pay. 2 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) are two typical neurodegenerative diseases that increased with aging. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neurological degeneration after neuroinflammation, such as that resulting from Alzheimer's disease (AD), stroke, multiple sclerosis (MS), and post-traumatic brain injury (TBI), is typically associated with high mortality and morbidity and with permanent cognitive dysfunction, which places a heavy economic burden on families and society. 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
We found that four items-a Medicare claim recording ADRD 1 year ago, 2 years ago, 3 years ago, and a total stay of 6 months in a nursing home-exhibit a pattern of association consistent with a single underlying ADRD construct, and presence of any two of these four items predict a direct measure of cognitive function and also future claims for ADRD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results of the simulations show that by prolonging the length of a person's 'stay' in the Mild, Moderate, or Severe stage, the total cost of care for all persons with AD will increase by 2080. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Out-of-pocket costs of dementia care were collected via a web-based weekly survey for up to 18 months. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
We examined how methods used for identifying dementia in administrative claims affected dementia incidence across racial/ethnic populations using a 100% sample of Medicare beneficiaries (n = 23,793,452). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Few ill health situations are more degrading to people of any age than loss of reasoning, faculties, and personhood. 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 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 →