The majority of dementia-related deaths in the United States occurred in nursing homes (66.9%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 88,523
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
60/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2003-07-01
More than one third of severely cognitively impaired residents in US nursing homes have feeding tubes. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 186,835
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
57/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2024-03-01
Of 285 297 total patients, 180 283 (63.2%) were female; 586 (0.2%) were American Indian/Alaska Native, 8957 (3.1%) Asian, 28 694 (10.1%) Black, 7406 (2.6%) Hispanic, 1959 (0.7%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 237 017 (83.1%) non-Hispanic White, and 678 (0.2%) multiracial individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 178
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
57/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.
·
Age and ageing
·
2004-05-01
The results from this study provide information about a group void in the literature pertaining to activity restriction from fear of falling - community-based seniors receiving home care services. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 2,304
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
57/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2021-04-03
Yet, the association became not significant after controlling for individual physical function. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 199
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
56/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2023-02-08
The sample included 2 619 464 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 61% women; 87% were White; 8% were Black; 22% with ADRD). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 464
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Of 353 people admitted during the enrolment period, 174 (49%) took part in the survey. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 97
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
54/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2024-04-25
Four states have clinician reporting mandates, 14 have mandates requiring drivers to self-report dementia diagnoses, and 32 states and the District of Columbia do not have explicit requirements. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 35
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
54/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2023-05-24
An estimated 2 971 449 individuals (mean age, 66.4 years; 95% CI, 64.8-68.2 years) filled prescriptions for OAB medications in 2019; 2 185 214 (73.5%; 95% CI, 62.6%-84.5%) identified as female, 2 326 901 (78.3%; 95% CI, 66.3%-90.3%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White, 260 685 (8.8%; 95% CI, 5.0%-12.5%) identified as non-Hispanic Black, 167 210 (5.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-8.2%) identified as Hispanic, 158 507 (5.3%; 95% CI, 2.3%-8.4%) identified as non-Hispanic other race, and 58 147 (2.0%; 95% CI, 0.3%-3.6%) identified as non-Hispanic Asian. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 449
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Medicare beneficiaries with a little or a lot of trouble hearing had 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] odds ratio [OR] = 1.10-1.27) and 25% (95% CI OR = 1.07-1.47) increased odds of reporting greater difficulty with understanding Medicare, respectively, compared with those with no hearing trouble. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 10,510
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
53/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2024-09-03
Of the 60 000 869 beneficiaries included (50 853 806 aged 65 years or older [84.8%]; 32 567 891 female [54.3%]; 5 555 571 Hispanic [9.3%]; 6 318 194 non-Hispanic Black [10.5%]; 44 384 980 non-Hispanic White [74.0%]), there were 4 312 496 (7.2%) with highly likely ADRD, 1 124 080 (1.9%) with likely ADRD, and 2 572 176 (4.3%) with possible ADRD, totaling more than 8.0 million with diagnostic evidence of at least possible ADRD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
53/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-02-21
Analysis included a total of 121 145 patients in non-D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 173 662 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 81.8 [7.8] years; 122 565 female [70.6%]; 6078 Asian [3.5%], 34 150 Black [19.7%], 37 580 Hispanic [21.6%], 95 854 White [55.2%]) and 78 166 patients in D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 122 681 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [8.0] years; 87 329 female [71.2%]; 10 530 Asian [8.6%], 33 280 Black [27.1%], 43 294 Hispanic [35.3%], 35 577 White [29.0%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 121
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
52/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-04-14
The study sample included 21 193 170 patients with 32 199 587 beneficiary-year observations (mean [SD] age, 75.5 [7.3] years; 18 936 697 [58.8%] female; 983 513 [3.1%] Asian or Pacific Islander, 3 190 515 [9.9%] Black, 2 710 930 [8.4%] Hispanic, and 25 314 629 [78.6%] White). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 21
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
In total, 208 (response rate2010: 51.05%, response rate2015=60.65%) bereaved relatives responded to the questionnaire. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
51/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2023-09-15
The 32 796 872 Medicare beneficiaries in the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 74.0 (12.5) years and included 18 228 513 females (55.6%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 18
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
As evidence supporting the robustness of blood-based biomarker (BBM) testing for Alzheimer disease (AD) continues to emerge, understanding the perceptions, drivers, and barriers to the adoption of these tests among primary care physicians (PCPs) in the United States is crucial for improving patient outcomes and advancing clinical management of AD. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 603
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
51/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2023-09-15
In this cross-sectional study of the Medicare population with acute and postacute care use, beneficiaries with ADRD had increasing enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program, proportional to the growth in overall enrollment, but their disenrollment from Medicare Advantage in the following year remained higher compared with beneficiaries without ADRD. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 18
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
50/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2026-07-10
Secondary outcomes included plan- and county-level factors associated with offering this benefit in 2025, estimated using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression with county-level random intercepts. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
In 2022, the overall prevalence of homebound beneficiaries was 22.0% (8.4% of beneficiaries were homebound, and 13.6% were semihomebound). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
48/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.
·
Not indexed
·
2022-01-07
Additionally, it is unknown whether the benefits of this cap would vary between Medicare patients with type 1 versus type 2 diabetes. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 2,227,229
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Average time to complete DEMQOL-CH was <5 minutes. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The majority of RC/AL patients were taking five or more medications; 16.0% of these patients were receiving IPMs. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Among TM enrollees, prevalence of dementia was lower by 4% points in 2014 (9.0%, 95%CI: 7.8%, 9.3%) compared to 2000 (13.0%, 95%CI: 12%, 14%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 18,381
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This benefit is being offered at no cost to eligible Medicare recipients; however, recent reports suggest that few persons are taking advantage of it (1–3) and who is using it is unclear. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
46/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2026-03-13
Among 5353 MA beneficiary observations (1239 [23.1%] aged 65-74 years; 3127 [58.4%] aged ≥75 years; 1785 male [33.3%]), 1629 (30.4%) reported a diagnosis of ADRD, and 3724 (69.6%) did not report an ADRD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
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.