28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
The authors observed that “Our findings showed that nurses provided chronic disease management that was acceptable, feasible and sustainable.” 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study evaluates the efficacy, safety, and economics of galantamine in the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients, and to provide evidence-based reference for optimizing drug selection, dosing strategies, and reimbursement policies in clinical practice. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent guidance from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) recommends remuneration for all Alzheimer's disease (AD) research participants. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 29 Evidence: moderate
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
Forty-three percent of the residents were not able to perform the balance test in SPPB. 5 key findings →
Participants: 696 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research on music therapy for older adults is a rapidly expanding and involves strong global collaboration. 2 key findings →
Participants: 5,253 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
of 74,486 decedents (60.5% women; mean age 87.1 years (standard deviation: 7.1)), 82.6% had at least one ED visit in their last year of life. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
From both commercial and Medicare Advantage perspectives, mirabegron was the most clinically effective treatment, while oxybutynin was the least expensive. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients with CLTI undergoing peripheral vascular intervention from 2017 to 2018 were derived from the Medicare-linked VQI (Vascular Quality Initiative) registry. 5 key findings →
Participants: 114 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
Analyses demonstrated that criteria regarding cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, hearing impairment, and sedentary lifestyle were associated with relatively high participant diversity, while gastro-intestinal/liver disease, motivation to participate, and language proficiency criteria were associated with relatively little diversity. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Medicare Advantage (MA) cares for an increasing proportion of traditional Medicare (TM) patients although, the association of MA on low-value care among hospitalized patients is uncertain. 3 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 147,153 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
A rise in the incidence of bullous pemphigoid (BP) was documented recently in Europe, and the main risk factors for BP remain unknown. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Crotty M, Whitehead CH, Wundke R, et al . 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 320 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This cohort study examines rates of new diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementias among beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage plans vs traditional Medicare from 2016 through 2020. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of enrollees, 15.9% entered the gap, 2.6% within the first 180 days; among gap enterers, only 6.7% exited again. 5 key findings →
Participants: 287,713 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study cohort included 1 415 265 long-stay nursing home residents with dementia who died between 2013 and 2022. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Surrogates were accurate in the majority of cases, made errors in 12% to 22% of cases, and were uncertain in 11% to 16% of cases. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Percentages of patients with imaging tests, DLB symptoms, diagnoses and treatments for DLB increased as patients’ first DLB diagnosis neared and occurred at lower percentages 7‐12 months after initial diagnosis. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 974 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is a clinical diagnosis without curative treatment. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 13,312 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
The age-adjusted prevalence rates of dementia (2.29%) and Alzheimer's disease (1.41%) in the Ibadan sample were significantly lower than those in the Indianapolis sample, both in the community-dwelling subjects alone (4.82% and 3.69%, respectively) and in the combined nursing home and community samples (8.24% and 6.24%, respectively). 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,494 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →