The final cohort consisted of 91 302 Medicare beneficiaries with an ADRD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
It appears that changes in the patients' behavior and in the interpersonal relations between caregivers and patients are associated with caregiver depression. 4 key findings →
Participants: 94 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Informal caregivers in the multicultural memory clinic cohort experienced a high level of caregiver burden (mean CSI-score multicultural cohort: 6.1 [SD: 3.3]; mean CSI-score native Dutch cohort: 4.8 [SD: 3.2]). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study examined the perception of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and caregiving among family caregivers of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD in China. 1 key finding →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The level of agreement with dysfunctional thought statements from the Dementia Thoughts Caregivers Questionnaire and Thoughts Questionnaire was low. 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The association between Alzheimer caregiving and natural killer (NK) cell activity and basal plasma levels of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), cortisol, beta-endorphin, prolactin, epinephrine, norepinephrine, and neuropeptide Y was determined in 100 spousal Alzheimer caregivers and 33 age- and gender-comparable control volunteers upon intake into a study of the psychological and physiologic impact of caregiving. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of this study is to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of caregivers and care recipients by caregiver type (i.e., daughter, son, daughter-in-law, and spouse) and to compare the caregiver burden among each type of caregiver. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Residents in memory-care assisted living had a lower adjusted risk of hospitalization (risk difference = -1.8 percentage points [P = .014], hazard ratio = 0.93 [0.87-1.00]), a lower risk of nursing-home admission (risk difference = -2.2 percentage points [P < .001], hazard ratio = 0.87 [-.79-0.95]), and a lower risk of a long-term nursing home admission (risk difference = -1.1 percentage points [P < .001], hazard ratio = 0.71 [0.57-0.88]). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Competition from another NH-based SCU was associated with the presence of an SCU in a NH [adjusted odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-6.6] but there were no associations with other measures. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
45/100
ROC analysis revealed a better score for those areas found under the curve for the CSDD-as against the DSM-IV criteria (0.96). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Urinary and fecal incontinence are comorbid conditions affecting over 50% of nursing home residents. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Disparities in incidence of NDD between Black and White beneficiaries narrowed by 0.37 per 100 person-years from 2014 to 2017. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At ages 50-54, between 79.0% (95% CI: 73.5, 84.5) and 87.6% (95% CI: 84.0, 91.2) of (non-Hispanic) Black, foreign-born Hispanic, and U.S.-born Hispanic women and men remain dual functional as compared with 90.4% (95% CI: 89.3, 91.4) and 91.4% (95% CI: 90.2, 92.5) of (non-Hispanic) White women and men, respectively. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
45/100
An estimated 2.88 million deaths occurred between March and December 2020. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With the rapid expansion of the aging population, the burden of Alzheimer's disease related dementias (ADRD) is anticipated to increase in racialized and minoritized groups who are at disproportionately higher risk. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From 2010 to 2016, the incidence and prevalence rates of LBD among Medicare beneficiaries ranged from 0.21%-0.18% and 0.90%-0.83%, respectively. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 439,760 HCV patients, the incidence rate of ADRD was higher in patients with periodontal diseases compared to those without (10.84% versus 9.26%, p < 0.001), and those with periodontal disease developed ADRD earlier compared to those without periodontal disease (13.99 versus 21.60 months, p < 0.001). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All four interventions cost less and are more effective (i.e., cost savings) than usual care from a societal perspective. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mercury remains a pervasive environmental neurotoxicant strongly implicated in hippocampal oxidative injury and dementia-related cognitive decline, yet safe multi-target agents against its neurotoxicity remain limited. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Findingss: uggested that dementia reshaped the structure and intensity of the shared decision-making process by increasing surrogate engagement and decisional demands, underscoring the importance of early advance care planning and structured support for family caregivers to sustain goal-concordant care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study reveals a critical disconnect between moderate dementia knowledge and the application of this knowledge into perceived clinical competence. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION The Dementia DataHub (DDH) reports U.S. dementia prevalence and incidence from Medicare data. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BBBO was achieved in 5 out of 6 subjects with an average volume of 983±626 mm 3 following FUS at the right frontal lobe both in white and gray matter regions. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We present a model for digital neural impairment screening and self-assessment, which can evaluate cognitive and motor deficits for patients with symptoms of central nervous system (CNS) disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), or dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The health issues associated with aging not only have a significant impact on the overall well-being of older individuals but also puts a lot of pressure of the healthcare system (3). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →