Oral health is strongly associated with overall health. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,488 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's blood-based biomarker (BBM) tests using single biomarkers or ratios are well characterized, but head-to-head comparisons of multi-analyte algorithmic tests on shared cohorts are lacking. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Diagnostic pathways for patients presenting with cognitive complaints may vary across geographies. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 6,744 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Specialised care services were highly prevalent. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The odds of the occurrence and of a greater severity of dementia were higher in 2010/2011 than in 2004/2005. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Competition from another NH-based SCU was associated with the presence of an SCU in a NH [adjusted odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-6.6] but there were no associations with other measures. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
45/100
ROC analysis revealed a better score for those areas found under the curve for the CSDD-as against the DSM-IV criteria (0.96). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
44/100
This cross-sectional study examines trends in coverage of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, semaglutide and tirzepatide, and prior authorization requirements among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Structural brain imaging is guideline-recommended for cases with newly diagnosed cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,095,947 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
43/100
The percentage of new enrollees with an ADRD code dropped significantly during the months of IMPACT passage (-1.42 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.13 to -0.71) and implementation (-1.98 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.70 to -1.26) but rose again during the following months. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prevalence rates of neuropsychiatric symptoms in Dutch nursing home patients with dementia residing in SCUs are high, especially agitation and apathy. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite the limitation of a cross-sectional design, our initial findings suggest that there is a strong association between medical comorbidity and cognitive status in AD. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were 13,700 beneficiaries with full-year enrollment in MA (6,046) or TM (7,724), 518 with ADRD and 13,252 without ADRD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Nursing homes generally met three quarters of the pre-defined criteria for advance care planning policy. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study found that awareness of home-based nursing, interest in home-based care for older people, and attitudes toward filial responsibility significantly influence the intention to work in home-based care. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 236 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mammogram utilization was 16% higher (Prevalence Ratio [PR] 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.29) among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia, compared to their counterparts in fee-for-service Medicare. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cross-sectional study examines the characteristics of prior authorization policies for new drugs in Medicare Part D to understand whether they are consistent with US Food and Drug Administration indications. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The median proportion of in-hospital LTC certification applications was 30.5% (IQR 24.5%-36.1%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Family physicians' empathy levels were independently associated with general, supportive, and accepting attitudes toward people with dementia, but not with exclusionary attitudes. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 412 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
- 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.
1,045 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated