The feasibility of the adapted multidomain intervention will then be evaluated in a future pilot trial. 2 key findings →
Participants: 21 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Although there may be some mild functional changes associated particularly with the MCI-memory impaired subtype, individuals with MCI do not appear to under-report their functional status as can often been seen in persons with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia among individuals 65 or older. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Risk of dementia by age 80 was more pronounced for Hispanic and black men compared with white men. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We evaluated the psychometric properties of the 12-item interviewer-administered screener version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-version II (WHODAS II) among older people living in seven low- and middle-income countries. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is an important cause of morbidity in the geriatric population in this community, where families take responsibility for the care of relatives with dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,067 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
46/100
Dementia is under-diagnosed to a greater extent among ethnic minorities in the age group 60 years and older but is over-diagnosed in the age group younger than 60 years. 3 key findings →
Participants: 219 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
46/100
Little information exists on the performance of black versus white patients with Alzheimer's disease on neuropsychological tests for dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 830 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Improving transportation access and diabetes care may be important targets for enhancing mobility and reducing racial disparities in mobility. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
SMC was associated with poorer objective memory performance even after controlling the effect of depression and demographic data, but SMC did not predict faster cognitive decline or dementia over 3 years. 5 key findings →
Participants: 543 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Previous studies have suggested that 4 latent constructs (depressed affect, well-being, interpersonal problems, somatic symptoms) underlie the item responses on the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,183 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Oral health is strongly associated with overall health. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,488 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Key Points Regardless of race and ethnicity, older adults with kidney failure residing in or receiving care at dialysis facilities located in high-segregation neighborhoods were at a 1.63-fold and 1.53-fold higher risk of dementia diagnosis, respectively. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants identified as non-Hispanic White (50%), non-Hispanic Black (30%), or Hispanic (13%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
105 participants (47 Latino, 55 Black), 64.7 (±8.8) years-old, female 66 (63%), with 16 (±2.3) years of education were assessed. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 105 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 5757 participants (21.7% Black, 20.3% Latinx, 58.1% AORE), we found lower odds of amyloid positivity in Black (odds ratio [OR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.83) and Latinx (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.91) compared to AORE. 4 key findings →
Participants: 5,757 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Half of the participants were over 70, with no formal education. 5 key findings →
Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four clusters were identified: least disadvantaged (Class 1: 31.5% men; 30.6% women), most disadvantaged (Class 2: 20.2% men; 19.4% women), high social support with Class 1 features (Class 3: 22.2% men; 24.1% women), and high social support with Class 2 features (Class 4: 26.1% men; 25.7% women). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
46/100
While amyloid precursor protein and the microtubule-associated protein tau demonstrated higher abundance in AD brains, no significant race-related differences were observed. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reactions to disclosure did not significantly differ among participant groups based on self-reported race and ethnicity. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia research lacks appropriate representation of diverse groups who often face substantial adversity and greater risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared to non-Hispanic or Latino (NH) White participants, Hispanic or Latino (3.52 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.61, 4.42]); NH Asian (2.97 points, 95% CI: [1.71, 4.22]); and NH Black participants (2.79 points, 95% CI: [1.96, 3.63]) participants demonstrated higher levels of endorsement of the VPAI items at baseline. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The nature and outcome of family caregiving is different for various racial and ethnic groups. 1 key finding →
Participants: 26 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a growing public health problem that disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans. 2 key findings →
Participants: 301 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When using ethnic group-specific norms, NP and functional abilities predicted diagnosis in both groups with no significant differences but BPS was only significant in Hispanics. 5 key findings →
Participants: 444 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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.
- F4‐01‐05: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN AMYLOID PET POSITIVITY IN THE IDEAS STUDY
- Implementing early detection of cognitive impairment in primary care to improve care for older adults
- Purpose in life is associated with mortality among community-dwelling older persons
- Ethnic Disparities and Inequalities in Dementia Care: An Extended Literature Review
- Self-rated health and its association with mortality in older adults in China, India and Latin America-a 10/66 Dementia Research Group study
- Change in Indices of Distress Among Latino and Anglo Female Caregivers of Elderly Relatives With Dementia: Site-Specific Results From the REACH National Collaborative Study
- A hindi version of the MMSE: The development of a cognitive screening instrument for a largely illiterate rural elderly population in india
- Making time for brain health: recognising temporal inequity in dementia risk reduction
- Cognitive Function in Low-Income and Low-Literacy Settings: Validation of the Tablet-Based Oxford Cognitive Screen in the Health and Aging in Africa: A Longitudinal Study of an INDEPTH Community in South Africa (HAALSI)
- Health of Bi+ Dementia Caregivers: Moderation Effects of Minority and Caregiving Stress
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