74/100
The estimated costs of dementia in LMICs are lower than in high-income countries. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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.
70/100
Our sample included 3,361,950 Medicare enrollees with ADRD (2,156,995 women [64%]; mean [SD] age, 83 [8.0] years; 2,646,405 white [78%], 344,478 black [10%], 224,010 Hispanic [7%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,361,950 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This retrospective cohort study described changes in all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs in dementia patients newly diagnosed with psychosis. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the diagnosis cohort, mean (SD) overall spending was $4773 ($9774) per quarter - 43% of which was spending on hospital care ($2048). 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,779 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the included 3 515 329 Medicare fee-for-service decedents, when adjusted for age and sex, the percentage of older decedents with an ADRD diagnosis increased from 34.7% in 2004 to 47.2% in 2017. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
52/100
In total, 1006 elderly were interviewed, with a 66.18% response rate. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent Medicare claims perform reasonably well in identifying dementia; however, there are consistent differences in cases of dementia identified through claims than in rigorous cohort evaluations. 5 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Before donanemab was approved, researchers built a computer model simulating lifetime outcomes for Alzheimer's patients to estimate whether aducanumab and donanemab were reasonably priced for the health benefit they provide. 4 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified a cohort of 3619 incident dementia cases, 38.9% were male, and 66.9% were non-Hispanic White. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This cross-sectional study examines upper bound and lower bound annualized Medicare costs for administering aducanumab to beneficiaries with the approved indications of mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional 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
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
The objectives of this study are (1) to identify beneficiary-level characteristics associated with skilled nursing facility (SNF) length of stay (LOS), and (2) to determine if significant differences in LOS exist for vulnerable populations at the individual level or among nursing homes that serve a disproportionate share of vulnerable populations. 4 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 →