Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 74 studies in Disparities · tagged Diagnosis (page 1 of 3) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 74 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Disparities” covers

Disparities — Differences in dementia risk, diagnosis and care across race, ethnicity, income, geography and sex.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Dementia diagnosis recording in general hospitals is increasing but remains less likely in some groups. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 21,387 Evidence: moderate

The Prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment among Chinese People: A Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2021-03-23

The prevalence of MCI in China was 15.4%, which varied by demographics, lifestyles, morbidity, screening tools, and diagnostic criteria. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 123,766 Evidence: high

Trends in dementia diagnosis rates in UK ethnic groups: analysis of UK primary care data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Clinical epidemiology 2018-08-08

People from the black ethnic group had a higher incidence of dementia diagnosis and those from the Asian ethnic group had lower incidence compared with the white ethnic group. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,511,681 Evidence: moderate

Mini-Mental State exam scores vary with education in blacks and whites

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1991-02-01

Previous studies have suggested that education and race may affect performance on standardized mental status tests. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

When assessed by simple questions, SMC appear to be present in the minority of those with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Prevalence of post-stroke cognitive impairment in china: a community-based, cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. PloS one 2015-04-13

International hospital-based studies have indicated a high risk of cognitive impairment after stroke, evidence from community-based studies in China is scarce. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 599 Evidence: low

In this study, we report the experience of the only reference clinical next-generation sequencing lab in Saudi Arabia with the first 1000 families who span a wide-range of suspected Mendelian phenotypes. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,019 Evidence: moderate

Our findings suggest cutoffs may need to be stratified by race/ethnicity and education to ensure detecting MCI from normal and MCI from dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,895 Evidence: low

Prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias in rural India: the Indo-US study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 1998-10-01

In this population, the prevalence of AD and other dementias was low, increased with age, and was not associated with gender or literacy. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,126 Evidence: moderate

Survival after dementia diagnosis differs by race/ethnicity, with shortest survival among whites and longest among Asian Americans. 3 key findings →

Participants: 23,032 Evidence: low

Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Numerous tools for assessment of cognitive impairment in low-literacy settings have been developed, and tools developed for use in high-income countries have also been validated in low-literacy settings. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

It could be of great improvement for the use of the MMSE in dementia screening in Chinese elderly population. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 9,629 Evidence: low

Ten-year incidence of dementia in a rural elderly US community population: the MoVIES Project

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2000-03-01

Incidence rates of all dementias and of AD increased with age; men and those with lesser education had higher rates of possible/incipient dementia (CDR = 0.5) in this community. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,298 Evidence: moderate

Age and education correction of Mini-Mental State Examination for English and Spanish-speaking elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 1996-03-01

Previous research has shown that the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMS) is biased as a measure of cognitive impairment in minority and low-education patients. 3 key findings →

Participants: 590 Evidence: low

A registry of the University of Washington Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Satellite. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 371 Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment: the Manchester consensus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Age and ageing 2021-01-01

Given considerable variation in diagnostic and therapeutic practice, there is a need for national guidance on the use of neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, cognitive testing, follow-up and diagnostic terminology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Black race was associated with greater dementia risk even after adjustment for education and other potential confounders. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed