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 43 studies in Disparities · tagged Genetics (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 43 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.

African ancestry GWAS of dementia in a large military cohort identifies significant risk loci

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2022-12-22

While genome wide association studies (GWASs) of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) in European (EUR) ancestry cohorts have identified approximately 83 potentially independent AD risk loci, progress in non-European populations has lagged. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,385 Evidence: high

Validation of a polygenic risk score for dementia in black and white individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Brain and behavior 2014-07-18

Non-Hispanic white and NHB Health and Retirement Study (HRS) participants provided genetic information and either a composite memory score (n = 10,401) or a dementia probability score (n = 7690). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,401 Evidence: high

In patients with sporadic ALS, we identified the repeat expansion in 236 (7·0%) of 3377 white individuals from the USA, Europe, and Australia, two (4·1%) of 49 black individuals from the USA, and six (8·3%) of 72 Hispanic individuals from the USA. 1 key finding →

Participants: 4,448 Evidence: low

ϵ4 prevalence in Black (46%) and White participants (46%) was almost double that of Latino participants (24%). ϵ4 was associated with poorer baseline episodic memory only in White participants (p = .001), but had a moderately strong association with episodic memory change across all racial/ethnic groups (Blacks= -.061 SD/year, Latinos = -.055,Whites= -.055). ϵ4 association with semantic memory change was strongest in White participants (-.071), intermediate in Latino participants (-.041), and weakest in Black participants (-.022). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 297 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive resilience to apolipoprotein E ε4: contributing factors in black and white older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-03-01

Although APOE ε4 carriers are at high risk for cognitive decline, our findings suggest possible intervention targets, including the enhancement of cognitive reserve and improvement of other psychosocial and health factors, to promote cognitive resilience among black and white APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 2,487 Evidence: moderate

The ASDIR for ADRD was higher for women (17.0 per 1000 person-years) than for men (15.3) and varied across African Americans (22.9 in women, 21.5 in men), Native Hawaiians (19.3, 19.4), Latinos (16.8, 14.7), Whites (16.4, 15.5), Japanese Americans (14.8, 13.8), and Filipinos (12.5, 9.7). 5 key findings →

Participants: 16,410 Evidence: moderate

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

We examined longitudinal associations between the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (ApoE4(+) status) and several cognitive outcomes and tested effect modification by sex. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 113 Evidence: moderate

The results suggest that APOE epsilon4 and heavy drinking and heavy smoking lower the age of onset for AD in an additive fashion. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 397 Evidence: moderate

Genetic risk modeling for dementia offers significant benefits, but studies based on real-world data, particularly for underrepresented populations, are limited. 3 key findings →

Participants: 610 Evidence: moderate

These results add to the body of evidence on the adverse impact of ambient air pollution on cognitive aging and brain health and provide new insights into the genetic and behavioral factors that may impact individual susceptibility. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,821 Evidence: low

As indicated by Cox regression modeling, dementia risk of low-educated individuals was not significantly different between ethnic groups but was related to having an APOE e4 allele (hazard ratio [HR] 1.89), depression (HR 1.67), stroke (HR 1.60), and smoking (HR 1.32). 3 key findings →

Participants: 819 Evidence: low

CAG trinucleotide expansion is the molecular basis of Huntington's disease worldwide and is a highly sensitive and specific marker for inheritance of the disease mutation. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,007 Evidence: low

Fine particulate matter, known as PM 2.5, is recognized as a risk factor for dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 217,336 Evidence: moderate

Early identification of younger, non-demented adults at elevated risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is crucial because the pathological process begins decades before dementia onset. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The findings support the pathological evidence that underlying variations in MAPT could contribute to disease pathogenesis by subtle effects on gene expression and/or splicing. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

To better characterize the potential biological mechanisms underlying insulin resistance (IR) and dementia, we derive cross-population and population specific polygenic scores [PSs] for fasting insulin and IR-related partitioned PSs [pPSs]. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The purpose of the study was to provide characterization of Mexican Americans who meet criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →

Participants: 633 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 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed