Home › Research › Costs and economics
The Alzheimer’s disease Burden in China (ABC) study: protocol for a nationwide multicentre cross-sectional and prospective cohort study
Wang Y, Qin Q, Yang K, Yu M, Yao Y, Gong C, Guo J, Yang L et al.. medRxiv, 2026-05-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Previous studies have shown that AD-related costs are mainly driven by long-term informal care. The results from this study will be actively disseminated through research articles and conference presentations.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wang, Y., Qin, Q., Yang, K., Yu, M., Yao, Y., Gong, C., et al. (2026). The Alzheimer’s disease Burden in China (ABC) study: protocol for a nationwide multicentre cross-sectional and prospective cohort study. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.04.30.26352138
Vancouver
Wang Y, Qin Q, Yang K, Yu M, Yao Y, Gong C, et al. The Alzheimer’s disease Burden in China (ABC) study: protocol for a nationwide multicentre cross-sectional and prospective cohort study. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.04.30.26352138.
BibTeX
@article{wang2026-8598bf0a,
author = {Wang, Y. and Qin, Q. and Yang, K. and Yu, M. and Yao, Y. and Gong, C. and Guo, J. and Yang, L. and others},
title = {{The Alzheimer’s disease Burden in China (ABC) study: protocol for a nationwide multicentre cross-sectional and prospective cohort study}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.04.30.26352138},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.04.30.26352138}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Previous studies have shown that AD-related costs are mainly driven by long-term informal care.
- The results from this study will be actively disseminated through research articles and conference presentations.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 13 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100. |
| Total | 21 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Costs and economics
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.