In 2021, dementia accounted for 56.9 million global cases, 2.0 million deaths, and 36.3 million DALYs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The global age-standardised DALY rates of ADRDs per 100 000 population slightly increased from 1331.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 881.57, 1781.61) in 1990 to 1347.24 (95% CI = 906.36, 1788.12) in 2021, with an AAPC of 0.04% (95% CI = 0.02, 0.05). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Incorporating RHR into the CAIDE model significantly improved predictive accuracy across Black African, Asian, White, and Native Hawaiian populations (mean AUC range: 0.80-0.91). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease become available, ensuring equitable access to timely and accurate diagnosis of cognitive impairment is critical. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study examined trends in rural-urban disparities in all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the USA between 1969 and 2009. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Leukocyte telomere length (LTL) is considered as the marker of biological aging and may be related to environmental factors. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reduced amyloid was observed in self-identified NHB participants who passed initial eligibility criteria for the A4 study. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Greater social resources, as defined by social networks and social engagement, are associated with reduced cognitive decline in old age. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In 2019, the global VSL-based economic burden of ADRDs was an estimated $2.8 trillion. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia represents a growing public health burden with large social, racial, and ethnic disparities. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among CN, APOE4 carriers showed lower entorhinal cortex neurite density than non-carriers, whereas APOE2 carriers showed lower cingulum neurite density than non-carriers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For decades, the study of genetically isolated populations has improved our understanding and management of genetic diseases that affect all populations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mutations in PSEN1 are the most common cause of autosomal dominant familial Alzheimer's disease (FAD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Among persons diagnosed with ADRD or related symptoms, 33.3% used an approved drug over the study period. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals from minoritized racial/ethnic groups face a disproportionate burden of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The burden of neurological disease is increasing globally. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older adults classified with dementia were more likely to drop out of the labor force and become poor than similar older adults without dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a major health concern in society, particularly in the aging population. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During follow up (mean 11.1 years), 13% of Veterans developed dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Compared to White participants, Black, Hispanic, and Asian participants reported taking fewer total medications (incidence rate ratio [IRR] ± standard error[SE] = 0.903 ± 0.017, 0.875 ± 0.021, and 0.912 ± 0.041, respectively, all p < 0.01). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Washington University School of Medicine Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center's "African American Participation in Alzheimer Disease Research: Effective Strategies" Workshop convened to address a major limitation of the ongoing scientific progress regarding Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD): participants in most ADRD research programs overwhelmingly have been limited to non-Hispanic white persons, thus precluding knowledge as to how ADRD may be represented in non-white individuals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Significant disparities in symptom severity reported by Alzheimer's caretakers were observed among the racial groups analyzed. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Alzheimer's disease (AD) disproportionately affects certain racial and ethnic subgroups, such as African American/Black and Hispanic adults. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overly restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria can reduce generalizability, slow enrollment, and disproportionately exclude historically underrepresented populations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients had a mean age of 70.4 (±6.6) years and 97.8% were men. 5 key findings →
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.
- Recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations in Alzheimer's disease research: A systematic review
- Associations of social determinants of health (SDOH) with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the HABS‐HD Study
- Diversity in United States Dementia Prevention Trials: An Updated Systematic Review of Eligibility Criteria and Recruitment Strategies
- General practitioners’ practices and training needs in dementia care: a comparison of urban and rural areas in Kazakhstan
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Differences in Dementia Caregivers' Well-Being
- Social determinants of pharmacological dementia management: results from IDEAS
- Development of a Rural and Remote Dementia Training Framework
- Empowering community health workers in dementia care in South Texas
- Impact of APOE4‐related dementia risk in underrepresented groups from the All of Us research program
- Effects of age, sex, and ethnicity on the association between apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease. A meta-analysis. APOE and Alzheimer Disease Meta Analysis Consortium
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