30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Prevalence studies indicate that as many as 50% of older adults experience bothersome pain on a regular basis (Dahlhamer et al., 2018; Galicia-Castillo & Weiner, 2023; Larsson et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2020; Rikard et al., 2023). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,041 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An increasing number of older adults reside in assisted living (AL) toward the end of life, and it remains unclear if this trend represents an additional place of care and end-of-life transition before eventual nursing home admission. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 273,722 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examines the difference in functional outcomes among Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) during a home health admission, which is unknown. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 81,735 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Per-dyad mean cost savings at 12 months were $2 354 for those who received COPE with a mean difference-in-difference of -$6 667 versus HCBS alone (95% CI: -$15 473, $2 734; not statistically significant). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examines the difference in functional outcomes among Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) during a home health admission, which is unknown. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 81,735 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among PWD with Medicaid, out-of-pocket costs for nursing homes and assisted living facilities were significantly higher (60%) compared to those TM (33%) and MA (30%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Claims-based dementia algorithms have not been evaluated in the Medicare Advantage (MA) population, a critical gap given the rapid growth of MA and concerns about data completeness. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,058 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
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
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
Our results show that MA enrollees in PR have six percentage points higher ADRD rates than their US counterparts. 2 key findings →
Participants: 123,609 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
Opioid use was significantly higher in females and Whites and varied by states. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared to TM, MA increased the odds of annual wellness visits and reduced Hispanic-White disparity in annual wellness visits. 2 key findings →
Participants: 129,177 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings highlight potential access and quality-of-care issues in PR, with implications for Medicare Advantage benchmarks. 4 key findings →
Participants: 4,965 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research participants enrolled in Falls Prevention EBPs reported decreased levels of loneliness and social isolation and were referred by physicians, social workers, and pharmacists using an order in the electronic medical record (EMR). 2 key findings →
Participants: 382 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA); however, little is known about MA beneficiaries diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Persons with dementia were significantly more likely to enter HHC directly from the community (60% vs. 37%, adjusted OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.50-1.53). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Successfully embedding technology into long-term care settings requires intentional, evidence-based community engagement strategies that address the unique needs of providers, caregivers, and persons living with dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This clinical trial was designed in partnership with a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, with the goal of comparing two care management approaches for its MA policyholders age >65 living with cognitive vulnerability. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our study underscores the role of telehealth in increasing AWV uptake and facilitating cognitive assessments. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The National Dementia Care Collaborative (NDCC) aims to improve access to and successful implementation of evidence-based comprehensive dementia care. 5 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Medicare enrollment among people with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) has reached an all-time high with about 12% of beneficiaries having an ADRD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Controlling for beneficiary, local, and state characteristics, we found the following factors to be associated with beneficiaries spending less time in nursing homes: fewer nursing home beds in the county, higher state Medicaid long-term care spending for home and community-based services (HCBS), and state use of Certificate of Need laws. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent studies indicate that having a billed AWV is associated with increases in preventive care services such as vaccinations, cancer screening, and dementia diagnosis. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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.
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 30,980 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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