27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
There was some evidence that the use of smartphones and tablets could aid cognitive function in older adults without cognitive impairment, particularly executive function and processing speed. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this sample, 12.7% of clients were admitted to LTC, with a mean time to admission of 49.6 months (SE = 0.20). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This paper reports first-year, real-world results from one of the 96 'Established Track' organizations in the CMS GUIDE dementia care model, which launched nationally on July 1, 2024. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 158 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 5,146 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,146 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Prevalence studies indicate that as many as 50% of older adults experience bothersome pain on a regular basis (Dahlhamer et al., 2018; Galicia-Castillo & Weiner, 2023; Larsson et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2020; Rikard et al., 2023). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,041 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The VSOP/A group had significantly improved processing speed and attention performance compared to the VE group, and these differences persisted through 6 months postintervention. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frailty and dementia are associated with poor health outcomes and increased health care utilization. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,132,367 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Virtual data collection was highly feasible in both studies, successfully engaging participants in ADRD research, including those from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older adults in rural India experience higher social isolation due to limited social and healthcare resources. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 71,513 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The average cost per enrollee per month was $110, or $1,320 per annum. 5 key findings →
Participants: 360 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current annual replacement cost of unpaid family care is between $96 and $182 billion, 44% of which is accounted for by dementia caregiving. 1 key finding →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregiving intensity is related to health for non-Latino White CGs and African American dementia CGs. 1 key finding →
Participants: 667 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An increasing number of older adults reside in assisted living (AL) toward the end of life, and it remains unclear if this trend represents an additional place of care and end-of-life transition before eventual nursing home admission. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 273,722 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-nine articles met our inclusion criteria and were categorized into 3 groups as follows: (a) mobile versions of existing article or computerized neuropsychological tests; (b) new cognitive tests developed specifically for mobile platforms; and (c) the use of new types of data for cognitive assessment. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When systematically reviewed using the USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review method and an a priori established protocol, a common theme emerged: diets characterized by higher consumption of vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, fish, seafood, and unsaturated vegetable oils, alongside lower intake of red and processed meats and sugar-sweetened beverages, are consistently associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline and dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examines the difference in functional outcomes among Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) during a home health admission, which is unknown. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 81,735 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Medicare Part D drug spending was substantial, increasing with dual-eligibility duration: $8732-$9107 among beneficiaries with full-year dual eligibility and exceeding $11 500 among those with 5+ chronic conditions. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,372,696 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Per-dyad mean cost savings at 12 months were $2 354 for those who received COPE with a mean difference-in-difference of -$6 667 versus HCBS alone (95% CI: -$15 473, $2 734; not statistically significant). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examines the difference in functional outcomes among Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) during a home health admission, which is unknown. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 81,735 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Various approaches to advance care planning are in use and generally acceptable also for persons with dementia and their care partners. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eighty-three theoretical or research articles from 1981 to 2020 were identified. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among PWD with Medicaid, out-of-pocket costs for nursing homes and assisted living facilities were significantly higher (60%) compared to those TM (33%) and MA (30%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Medicare-funded home health care (HH) is a crucial resource helping Persons with Dementia (PwD) meet their care needs while aging in place. 1 key finding →
Participants: 907,553 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Quality of education was positively correlated with both educational attainment and cognitive performance. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Claims-based dementia algorithms have not been evaluated in the Medicare Advantage (MA) population, a critical gap given the rapid growth of MA and concerns about data completeness. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,058 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,380 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →