We studied 40,492 hypertensive patients taking at least one antihypertensive drug class. 1 key finding →
Participants: 40,492 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
53/100
A location dynamics model and ADRD-focused future directions are offered for guiding rural practitioners, researchers, and policymakers in mitigating rural disparities. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
Future studies need to examine underlying processes and develop interventions to reduce disparities while also being more broadly inclusive of diverse populations. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Future studies should emphasize collection of relevant psychosocial factors in addition to the development of intentional diversity and inclusion efforts to improve the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic representativeness of AD studies. 1 key finding →
Participants: 131 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A cross-sectional study of geriatric patients was performed to provide a comprehensive description of the prevalence and clinical characteristics of chronic itch affecting Hispanic geriatric subjects in Mexico. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 302 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prevalence of dementia in this rural Tanzanian population is similar to that reported in high-income countries. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,198 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
As ADRD deaths at home increase, the need for caregiver support and home-based palliative care may become more critical. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Thirteen percent of care recipients had at least 1 ACSH. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Perceived greater access to greenspaces (estimate = 2.83, 95% CI = 1.40–4.26) and greater time in neighborhood greenspaces were associated with greater RI scores (estimate = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.24–3.35). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 162 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Time is an under-recognised social determinant of brain health, and is potentially as important as education or income for dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Limited studies focusing on the intersectional determinants of preferences of ethnic minority groups or post-migrants with dementia were found. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The cultural tailoring of interventions is promising to address disparities in dementia care and interventions in underserved communities. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 400 103 AF and dementia-related deaths were recorded between 2000 and 2020. 5 key findings →
Participants: 400 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a mean follow-up of 14.6 years, 7.7% of the participants (n = 614) developed dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 7,960 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
9118 references were identified, and 103 articles (from 78 studies) published between 1992 and 2024 were included. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During the COVID-19 pandemic, home health agencies (HHAs) discharges following acute hospitalizations increased. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 426,766 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Educational attainment does not contribute to CR similarly across racial/ethnic groups. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,553 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study demonstrated the utility of a blood-based, multi-pathway biomarker assay for early screening and staging of AD, providing insights for patient stratification and precision medicine. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Using worldwide health data, researchers project that the number of people living with dementia will nearly triple by 2050, from about 57 million in 2019 to about 153 million. 4 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Minority Aging Research Study (MARS) is a longitudinal, epidemiologic cohort study of decline in cognitive function and risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in older African Americans, with brain donation after death added as an optional component for those willing to consider organ donation. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The two overarching themes lend themselves to interventions at a service level and a community level which need to happen in synergy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 25,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
African Americans have higher incidence of, and mortality from, many health-related problems than European Americans. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
52/100
Reduced ED attendances in the first wave of the pandemic suggest opportunities for reducing low severity presentations to ED in the future, but also raise the possibility of harm from delayed or missed care. 4 key findings →
Participants: 243,667 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From across this tag
10 of the 926 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
- Social factors that predict cognitive decline in older African American adults
- Racial/ethnic disparities in dementia incidence, outcomes, and health-care utilization
- Black and White individuals differ in dementia prevalence, risk factors, and symptomatic presentation
- Predicting Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Machine Learning Approach
- Data-Driven Food Desert Metric to Understand Access to Grocery Stores Using Chi-Square Automatic Interaction Detector Decision Tree Analysis
- Association of neighborhood disadvantage with Alzheimer's disease pathology and the stability of blood-based biomarker performance
- DISPARITIES IN CONTINUITY OF CARE AND USE OF ANNUAL WELLNESS VISITS AMONG OLDER AMERICANS WITH DEMENTIA
- Decomposing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Risk and Protective Factors of Dementia in the U.S
- Mediating effect of social support on the relationships between caregiver burden and quality of life in family caregivers of people with dementia: a cross-sectional study in Rural China
- Enhancing the Quality of Life of Dementia Caregivers From Different Ethnic or Racial Groups: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 Where this research is being discussed: events