People living with dementia have the right to access dementia-friendly information about issues that concern them. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
24/100
Stark said. “These plans typically charge more than traditional Medicare for a large number of services—everything from home health care to hospital stays and chemotherapy drugs to durable medical equipment. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Scenario #1—Use of test battery code 92557 Comprehensive audiometry threshold $44.53 92567 Tympanometry $19.91 92568 Acoustic Reflex Testing $14.12 92569 Acoustic Reflex Decay Testing $15.20 92506 Evaluation of speech, language, voice, communication, and/or auditory processing $94.84 Total $188.60 CPT 92506, a code that represents a battery of tests, has a higher work value (i.e., higher reimbursement rate) associated with it than CPT codes for individual CAP tests (e.g., Staggered Spondaic Word test). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are known to affect both the patient and the family caregiver. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although extensively studied in the acute care setting, the syndrome of delirium— also referred to as acute confusion—has been a subject of relatively few studies in the long-term care (LTC) setting. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
But advocacy groups, including APA, have been bracing for enormous complications with transitioning these beneficiaries— some 2 million of whom are believed to have mental illness—into the new program. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
And, she noted, data from the 2009-2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey have shown that “high-need adults spent more on health care but were less likely to report that the health system works for them.” 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The results were announced earlier this month at a press conference in Washington D.C., and were published in the May American Journal of Psychiatry. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Association NewsFull AccessAssembly Votes Challenge Threats to Patient CareKen HausmanKen HausmanSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Dec 2006https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.41.23.0004Patient care issues had a prominent place on the agenda for the APA Assembly's November meeting in Washington, D.C., and several dealt with prescribing concerns in a health care environment that is not always patient friendly. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There is explosive growth in the number of older Americans, who are at higher risk for cancer. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In January, the NHS presented its long-awaited plan to transform care over the next 10 years. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We know that lifestyle changes, such as to diet and exercise regimens, can have an impact on the risk of developing dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In fact, average benefits are considered modest compared with the benefits of other developed countries. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This includes adapting and disseminating care delivery innovations from one system to another, as well as measuring and sharing in the improved outcomes and reduced costs that might result. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
16/100
Cultural narratives shape how we think about the world, including how we decide when the end of life begins. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Accelerated approval of aducanumab for mild Alzheimer's by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 7, 2021, has generated substantial medical, scientific, and ethical controversy. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We study the design of optimal (private and/or social) insurance schemes for formal home care and institutional care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Marginal utility of financial resources when needing long-term care, and the related incentives for precautionary savings and insurance, may vary significantly by whether one receives care at home or in a nursing home. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
Internet use for health information was significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prognostic significance of psychosis in dementia differs by symptom profile. 4 key findings →
Participants: 21,108 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Functional decline, as assessed by CGA, was more prominent in patients undergoing hemodialysis than in those not undergoing hemodialysis. 3 key findings →
Participants: 328 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent mechanistic evidence identifies lithium deficiency as a driver of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) pathogenesis. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
More than one-quarter of residents with ADRD remain untreated with guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy, and treatment varied significantly by non-clinical predictors. 5 key findings →
Participants: 359,801 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Real-terms UK government spending on health-related long-term care grew by £6.4 billion (22.9%) between 2013 and 2022, from £27.9 to £34.3 billion. 3 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
- 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 31,380 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