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
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A major tenet of gerontological practice and policy has been that community-based services relieve stress on family caregivers and delay or prevent institutionalization of frail elders. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Under Medicare Part D, senior citizens choose prescription drug insurance offered by numerous private insurers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cox proportional hazard regressions indicated that baseline characteristics including older age, White race, diabetes, incontinence, stroke, and difficulties with instrumental activities increased risk of NHP in those without dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The burden experienced by family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) affects the caregivers' overall health-related quality of life (HRQOL). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An independent US drug-pricing watchdog analyzed how lecanemab's actual price compares to its clinical benefit. 4 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this setting, selective participation had only a limited effect on prevalence estimates after weighting. 2 key findings →
Participants: 25,977 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
People with Down syndrome have higher age-specific mortality rates compared to the general population as well as peers with other intellectual and developmental disabilities. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 137,293 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We recommend using a broad (ADRD) algorithm without CMS or medication data, particularly for epidemiological studies or a strict AD algorithm including CMS and medication cases for genetic discovery of late-onset AD associations in VA EMR, and a strict AD algorithm without CMS data for applications focused solely on AD and sensitive to misspecification. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Earlier diagnosis increases total expenditures but improves care and cost allocation. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No association between cadmium exposure and dementia incidence was observed. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,122 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 10,666 patients (mean age 76.6 years; 35% female; 70% White, 21% Black), phenotype distribution was: A, 9.4%; B, 7.1%; C, 50.7%; D, 32.7%. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 824 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
Both classes act on neuronal calcium signaling, raising the question of whether their combined use is associated with greater cognitive risk than gabapentin alone. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33,791 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher prevalence was observed in the ID group relative to the general population for epilepsy, young-onset ADRD, and their comorbidity. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 847,430 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with dementia were more likely to be frail, comorbid, and not receive standard-of-care neoadjuvant chemotherapy. 3 key findings →
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
These findings highlight that extensive long-term utilization of pain management strategies in older adults is associated with increased risks of adverse outcomes, particularly hospitalizations and incident dementia, especially among fit older adults, emphasizing the need for careful monitoring and personalized approaches to pain management in older populations, balancing effective pain control with minimization of potential long-term risks. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 24,539 Evidence: moderate
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
Randomisation: Allocated 1 : 1 : 1 through Trials Unit, independently of trial team. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 326 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For mild to moderately severe AD, the results of the study suggested that all three treatments were beneficial when assessed using cognitive outcome measures. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two hundred and sixty participants were randomised (173 intervention, 87 TAU). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The intention-to-treat analysis identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes [self-reported quality of life in Alzheimer's disease: mean difference 0.07, standard error (SE) 0.65; F = 0.48; p = 0.53]. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 488 Evidence: high
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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