Of 23 892 individuals moving-in to care homes, 20 250 (84.8%) died by 31 May 2020. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 892 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A total of 364 studies were identified using our search strategy on Ovid, 278 records were screened, and 20 studies were included in this review. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 364 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These include segmental colitis associated with diverticulitis, colorectal cancer, radiation proctitis, ischemic and infectious colitis, as well as NSAID-induced enterocolitis (6,7). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 123 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Meta-analyses of epidemiological studies have suggested that Alzheimer's disease (AD) may be linked with exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (MF). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 155,562 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab was approved for early Alzheimer's disease in Japan, with ≈ 6000 patients treated in the first year post approval. 2 key findings →
Participants: 6,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The advent of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), from symptomatic relief to disease modification. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Analysis included a total of 121 145 patients in non-D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 173 662 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 81.8 [7.8] years; 122 565 female [70.6%]; 6078 Asian [3.5%], 34 150 Black [19.7%], 37 580 Hispanic [21.6%], 95 854 White [55.2%]) and 78 166 patients in D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 122 681 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [8.0] years; 87 329 female [71.2%]; 10 530 Asian [8.6%], 33 280 Black [27.1%], 43 294 Hispanic [35.3%], 35 577 White [29.0%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 121 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 4240 patients included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 75 [7] years; 2327 [54.9%] female), 1991 were diagnosed with CRC and 2249 with NSCLC. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,240 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
52/100
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
52/100
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
51/100
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
Latino family caregivers of people with dementia face significant challenges and limited access to support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The advancement of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD), along with the approval of three amyloid-targeting therapies in the US and several other countries, represents a significant development in the treatment landscape, offering new hope for addressing this once untreatable chronic progressive disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among a matched sample of 15,410,030 beneficiaries, accounting for both provider and patient characteristics, the incident dementia diagnosis rate was 0.11 percentage points lower for MA beneficiaries compared to TM beneficiaries attributed to the same PCP. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab, an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody, has been approved for treatment of early Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 137 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This Viewpoint discusses the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) model, a new payment model announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Innovation Center to broaden prior authorization in traditional Medicare. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
44/100
This cross-sectional study examines trends in coverage of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, semaglutide and tirzepatide, and prior authorization requirements among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four themes were found: sense of self, connection to others, acceptance versus resistance in the face of adversity, and orientation toward the future versus focus on the present. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study population consisted of 54 million Medicare data Fee-for-Service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage enrollees aged ≥ 65; 5.3 million beneficiaries were diagnosed with ADRD, and 16.2% (n = 861,337) of beneficiaries diagnosed with ADRD resided in rural America. 4 key findings →
Participants: 861,337 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Training gaps in the U.S. dementia care workforce impact patient support. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For 2018 and 2019, 3.5% and 5.4% received ACP visits, and 0.4% and 0.5% received CAACPS visits, similar to use reported elsewhere. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Differences in system‐level factors such as access to dementia specialists is a contributing factor to differences in diagnosis rates in MA and TM. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
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
- 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.
1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →