60/100
Overall, 1.45% of the study cohort age ≥65 received HBMC. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 132,147 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
After cohort matching, 48% of participants were women (n = 74 464), 61% were white (n = 93 442), and 31% (n = 48 056) were Medicare Advantage insured, with a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 154 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The analytic sample included 1 054 926 beneficiaries, including 219 942 (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.3] years; 54.6% female) who developed new complex conditions in 2019 and 834 984 (mean [SD] age, 73.8 [5.6] years; 56.7% female) who did not develop a new complex condition in 2019. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The COVID-19 pandemic forced adult day services (ADS) to close and abruptly end in-person services to clients. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 19 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 18,341 patients, we found that 2202 (12%) were described as "frail" in clinical notes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 18,341 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite using more home health and hospital services than controls in the baseline preenrollment period, which suggests that they were sicker, participants receiving house calls had 17% lower overall Medicare costs than controls, and there was no indication of poorer quality of care, greater mortality, or underservice. 4 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 9,425 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Overall, 5% of the study population (n=161,801) received 2+ months of HCC visits; of these, 46% also received 2+ HBMC visits (n=73,638) while 54% received only skilled home health (n=88,163 HCC but no HBMC). 4 key findings →
Participants: 161,801 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
49/100
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
He has even given a threshold outlining when the practice of medicine ends versus when the practice of unethical, non–institutional review board approved research begins. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
49/100
PA policies varied substantially across private insurers in the US. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Receipt of potentially burdensome hospitalizations and treatments; receipt of postdischarge home and facility care. 5 key findings →
Participants: 659 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a sample of 1218 new HCBS users (75% female, 77% Black; mean [SD] age, 70.5 [7.5] years), Medicaid HCBS initiation was associated with a decrease in probability of ED use (-2.70 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.18 to -1.22 percentage points) and a decrease in probability of inpatient discharge (-2.63 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.75 to -1.51 percentage points). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This Viewpoint discusses the potential benefits and harms of prior authorization in Medicare Advantage and the health policy implications and opportunities for improvement. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The simulated cohort was informed by 111 600 PWH enrolled in Medicare at the start of 2026 (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [5.0] years; 77% male). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The early literature on Alzheimer Dementia (AD) describes the clinical features aphasia, apraxia and agraphia as characteristic. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
40/100
We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
40/100
We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that moving to an AL influences Medicare enrollment decisions; and, variation in switching exists between the type of AL (general vs memory care) and whether or not an individual has dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 63,395 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that moving to an AL influences Medicare enrollment decisions; and, variation in switching exists between the type of AL (general vs memory care) and whether or not an individual has dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 63,395 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
39/100
Skilled home health care (HHC) is a critical service for community-dwelling older adults with dementia, but the majority of evidence about its use and quality is based on Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. 1 key finding →
Participants: 316,407 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Home-based medical care (HBMC) delivers physician or advanced practice provider-led medical services for patients in private residences and domiciliary settings (eg, assisted living facilities, group/boarding homes). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administrative data are among the most practical sources for understanding the incidence of dementia over time in older populations, but have yet to be widely used in intervention studies. 1 key finding →
Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
36/100
There are significant opportunities for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to play important roles in the primary and secondary prevention of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) beyond current practices. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Through 2022, 5% of fee-for-service beneficiaries with dementia received CACP compared to 3% of MA beneficiaries (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 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