There were few differences in how MA plan characteristics affected choice among older adults with and without dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Palliative care should be introduced as a culturally tailored set of services to assist families in ways that align with their values and caregiving practices. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Using multiple Medicare Public Use Files (PUF), including star ratings for home health quality of patient care (QoPC), home health care CAHPS survey (HHCAHPS), county-level ADRD prevalence, and Medicare FFS enrollment, we found that the median county-level number of home health agencies was 15 (IQR 8-29), star rating was 3.4 (IQR 3.1-3.7) for QoPC and 3.8 (IQR 3.5-4.0) for HHCAHPS. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found significant county-level variability in utilization of high-quality home health. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When rs140926439 was absent, 0.10% of APOEε2/3 carriers had AD, while 0.43% of APOEε4 carriers or homozygotes had AD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A growing population of individuals with multimorbidity, cognitive impairment and functional decline live in the community but are homebound, defined as rarely or never leaving home. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increasing evidence suggests that accurate prediction of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) symptom onset requires more than amyloid- and tau-centric biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40, total tau and p-tau181 and plasma p-tau217. 4 key findings →
Participants: 484 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
INTRODUCTIONAPOE*{varepsilon}4 is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimers disease (AD), yet its effect varies across ancestral populations. 1 key finding →
Participants: 2,733 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ObjectiveTo investigate whether a lifetime history of DSM-5 AUD and correlated indices of alcohol consumption are associated with accelerated age-related cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,421 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 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.
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 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 →