alzhub.org
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.

Research

31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 651–675 of 824 studies · free to read (page 27 of 33) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 824 studies tagged prevalence — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,851 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Breast cancer screening among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. BMC Health Services Research 2024-03-05

Mammogram utilization was 16% higher (Prevalence Ratio [PR] 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.29) among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia, compared to their counterparts in fee-for-service Medicare. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Population Surveillance of Dementia Mortality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2011-04-20

Geographic and temporal variation in occurrence of dementia within the US has received little attention despite its importance for generation of new etiologic hypotheses and health services research. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Social determinants of pharmacological dementia management: results from IDEAS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We used multilevel logistic regression with a random site intercept to test whether the probability of change in management associated with social determinants, race/ADI interactions with amyloid‐positivity, comorbidities, and clinical setting, adjusting for demographics. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Trends in Diagnosis of Dementia Subtypes in Nationwide Medicare Claims, 2015‐2021, by Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

In a national database of Medicare claims, there were substantial secular trends and differences in coding of dementia subtypes by race/ethnicity, sex, and neighborhood socioeconomic status. 2 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Prevalence, aetiology, and service mapping of dementia in rural Uganda. Part of DEPEND Uganda (Dementia Epidemiology, unmet Need and co-Developing Solutions in Uganda)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Wellcome Open Research 2025-01-24

This is the first study in Africa using blood-based and retinal imaging biomarkers to examine pathological processes underlying dementia, and systematically map services available for people with dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Prevalence of Post-stroke Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in a Sudanese Cohort: A Single-center Retrospective Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. International Journal of Biochemistry Research & Review 2025-02-07

Of 81 stroke survivors (mean age 61.9±13.9 years), 72.8% had ischemic stroke, and 27.2% had hemorrhagic stroke. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The potential impact of optimal blood pressure treatment intensity to reduce disparities in dementia between Black and White individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-01-01

average annual dementia incidence in White, but not Black, adults (1% versus 0%), due to hypertensive individuals' greater survival, and reduce annual ASCVD events more in Black than White adults (13% versus 5%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Projected Demographic Trends in the Likelihood of Having or Becoming a Dementia Family Caregiver in the U.S. Through 2060

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Populations 2025-05-20

This study predicts how sociodemographic trends-smaller family sizes, increased longevity, and marital patterns-could affect family care for people with dementia through 2060. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Mapping knowledge landscapes and emerging trends in digital biomarkers for dementia in older adults: A scoping and bibliometric analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus 2025-04-09

This paper presents a systematic bibliometric analysis of the research landscape at the intersection of Alzheimer's disease and gerontechnology, identifying key contributors, research hotspots, and emerging trends. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A pilot study investigating the effectiveness, appreciation, and feasibility of a cognitive stimulation program in dementia patients: online versus face-to-face

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Frontiers in Psychology 2025-04-07

No significant differences were found between the in-person and remote groups in terms of age, education, or gender. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia in people with Parkinson's disease: A call-to-action

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of Parkinson s Disease 2025-10-01

Mild cognitive impairment and dementia are common symptoms in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) that impair the quality of life of those affected. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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.

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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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