The median proportion of in-hospital LTC certification applications was 30.5% (IQR 24.5%-36.1%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
MA-PD enrollees had significantly lower utilization of PIMs than standalone PDP enrollees: a 0.7 percentage-point [95% CI: 0.5, 0.8] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia; a 3.1 percentage-point [2.6, 3.5] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia and a history of falls; and a 0.5 percentage-point [0.4, 0.6] lower prevalence of high-risk medications in older adults. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the 1,035 patients in our dataset, 176 (17%) had a dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,035 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Average county‐level ADRD prevalence was 11.06% across the pre‐expansion period and 7.15% post‐expansion. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
33/100
The consequences of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) are well documented, but beyond the individual, family, and health system costs are implications for communities that are not well-studied. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of plasma p -tau217 was 0.941. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the study scenario, adding plasma p -tau217 testing to SCE reduced diagnostic costs by $342/patient, through more efficient use of amyloid PET and CSF testing. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In Part 1 (currently ongoing), between February 6, 2024, and December 27, 2024, 322 adults were screened, of whom 75 (aged 59-89 years) met NIA-AA and IPA criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 322 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The APOE (apolipoprotein E) ε4 allele is the strongest known genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD) and for brain amyloidosis, an early marker of disease pathophysiology. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings highlight the potential of diverse genomic backgrounds to uncover protective genetic factors, such as the African-specific protective PSG2 locus, found to confer a protective effect among APOE4 carriers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the colocalization of cis-eQTL and GWAS signals for Hispanics, we observed a high posterior probability (posterior prob = 0.9947) for the upstream gene variant rs755980338 on chromosome 11, which locally regulates EHD1 gene (GWAS p-value = 0.009, cis-eQTL p-value = 0.0041). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fifty-four participants (~8% response rate) from the MindCrowd web-based cohort (mean age of 62.39 years; 39 females; and 23 APOE ε4 carriers) completed 75 trials of Super G. Results show that Super G performance was significantly associated with each of the targeted risk factors. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Spatial transcriptomics (ST) data provide spatially informed gene expression profiles. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Die Frühphasen- & R1-Bilder korrelierten signifikant in allen Gruppen (Gesunde: r=0,68-0,84; AD: r=0,81-0,9; PSP-RS: r=0,81-0,86; FTD: r=0,76-0,82). 5 key findings →
Participants: 26 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study explores how older people with dementia and their family caregivers experience the process from diagnosis to follow-up in primary care, what support is needed, what works well and what could be improved. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Based on the stakeholder responses from fifteen providers and twenty community members, there was strong consensus in the need for local brain health services. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) offers effective, flexible approaches well suited to conduct health research with underrepresented populations that can be tailored to unique social, cultural, and geographic contexts. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
• Brain health depends on certain environmental resources of which socioeconomically disadvantaged people in particular are deprived. • Resource deprivation may increase dementia risk due to reduced attainment for deprived populations. • Improving attainment across the lifetime for disadvantaged individuals should be a public health priority for dementia prevention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The unprecedented rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent times is unparalleled in history.AI 1 seemingly possesses cognitive abilities that hitherto only humans could boast of -reason, an inimitable, embodied, and finite existence. 47Nonetheless, the ubiquitous abilities of AI can help to enhance treatment and care for PLWDs in 48 enabling early diagnosis, continuous monitoring and personalized support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
33/100
Conventional dementia screening tools, whether paper tests or static artificial intelligence (AI) models, capture only a snapshot of cognition and need to be adminstered periodically. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The approval of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease demands a rethinking of cognitive screening. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
33/100
Dementia is a progressive condition that affects cognitive and functional abilities. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This approach predicts clinical progression (2-year Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes change > 1) with an area under the curve of 0.836. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Data from the qualitative interviews will provide dyad preferences for intervention development. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During alteplase administration, the patient experienced clinical deterioration. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 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.
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 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 →