Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 847 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Though these findings cannot prove causality, and we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding, they provide more evidence of the risk of using these drugs in older patients, reinforcing the concept that they should not be used in the absence of clear need. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of the 8688 individuals in the Medicare Advantage population with a dementia diagnosis, 1061 (12.2%) received an antipsychotic medication. 4 key findings →
Participants: 8,688 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
State Medicaid programs use prior authorization (PA) to control drug spending by requiring that specific conditions be met before allowing reimbursement. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Atypical antipsychotics are associated with incident diabetes in older adults without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder QUESTION Question: Is atypical antipsychotic use associated with incident diabetes or hyperlipidaemia in older people without schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? 1 key finding →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results from this study provide information about a group void in the literature pertaining to activity restriction from fear of falling - community-based seniors receiving home care services. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,304 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified 107,931 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as an AL resident and 323,766 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as a LSNH resident with dementia, including 1,923,867 person-months and 4,984,405 person-months, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Central nervous system (CNS)-active medication use is common in older adults; however, there are limited data on utilization trends over time, differences in utilization amongst those with and without dementia, and modification of utilization surrounding dementia diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 444,587 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
50/100
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
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
In 2016, there were 1,005,781 Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service long-term residents. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DLB patients had higher medication and psychosis‐related costs than DRP patients who had other dementias. 3 key findings →
Participants: 442 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multimorbidity results in use of multiple medications. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Predictors of an AD dementia diagnosis included age (odds ratio [OR], 1.71) and use of antipsychotics (OR, 2.50) and hypertension medication (OR, 1.25). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Falls are an important event in a senior citizen's life, and offer the potential for significant morbidity and mortality. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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