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 701–725 of 824 studies · free to read (page 29 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.

The Incidence and Prevalence of Dementia Among Ontario Adults With and Without Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2025-02-01

Compared to persons without IDD, cumulative incidence of dementia was on average 4.27 and 5.33 times higher in persons with Non-DS IDD and DS respectively and period prevalence of dementia was on average 4.87 and 5.93 times higher in persons with Non-DS IDD and DS respectively. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Artificial intelligence approach to optimise safety for hospitalised patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. BMJ Open Quality 2025-09-01

We used 1387 safety event reports for model development, 989 (71.3%) reports related to situational factors and 119 (8.6%) reports related to active failures. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The Influence of a Specialized Dementia Ward on the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease Patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of Personalized Medicine 2025-02-25

No statistically significant differences emerged between SDW and GW groups regarding baseline demographics, cognitive function, ADL, or neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A comparison of cognitive and health assessment tools used in a dementia prevention and risk management program for urban-dwelling older aboriginal Australians (DAMPAA)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. SSM - Mental Health 2025-04-29

There were weak or no correlations between the KICA-Cog and other cognitive assessment tools. 5 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

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

Privileges, and Permissions: Theorising Intersectionality and Cultures of Control in the Care of People Living With Dementia in Acute Hospital Settings

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Sociology of Health & Illness 2025-01-01

A longstanding body of public enquiries and research identifies people living with dementia experience systemic inequalities within hospital settings, concluding a focus on improving care cultures is required. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Identifying Challenges Related to the Management of Comorbidities in People with Dementia in Residential Care: Expert Delphi Consensus Exercise

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of Applied Gerontology 2025-01-06

Improving early detection, management, and treatment of comorbid conditions to dementia in residential care could slow down cognitive and functional decline, and increase residents' quality of life. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Perceptions of Hospital Care for Persons With Dementia During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Social Media Sentiment Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2023-11-07

Hospital dementia care discourse on Reddit advanced 4 negative sentiment themes: (1) fear of poor medication management, hydration, and hygiene, (2) loss of patient advocacy, (3) precipitation of advance directive discussions, and (4) delayed discharge and loss of nursing home bed. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Multi-model deep learning for dementia detection: addressing data and model limitations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Frontiers in Neuroscience 2025-11-25

Among all evaluated models, the 3D-CNN and multimodal attention models achieved the highest performance, with accuracies of 84% and 86%, specificities of 83% and 86%, and sensitivities of 84% and 86%, respectively. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Investigating dementia patterns by machine learning and graph-based marker analysis for multiclass dementia diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Discover Computing 2026-05-18

Dementia is a debilitating disease that leads to a gradual loss of memory and other cognitive abilities and tends to develop in people over 60 years of age. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A community-based participatory approach to delivering the Dealing with Dementia program to Black caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Frontiers in Public Health 2025-10-21

Following the pilot field test, a sustainability plan was co-developed with community facilitators to support continued implementation and ensure that resources spent on DWDAlter were not lost. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Improving Early Detection of Dementia: Extra Trees-Based Classification Model Using Inter-Relation-Based Features and K-Means Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Big Data and Cognitive Computing 2025-05-30

The early detection of dementia, a condition affecting both individuals and society, is essential for its effective management. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Systemic disadvantages facing UK ethnic elders within dementia healthcare

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. BJPsych Advances 2025-07-02

Reduced access to dementia healthcare services by elders from ethnic minority backgrounds is often a manifestation of underlying systemic disadvantages within dementia assessment and treatment services. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

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

Do Older Mexican Americans With Dementia Benefit From Living Closer to the Border? Evidence From the HEPESE

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 2025-01-10

Hispanic older adults face significant barriers to healthcare access, stemming from multiple factors: limited income, high medical costs, elevated rates of chronic disease and dementia, and greater reliance on public insurance programs, relative to other racial, ethnic, and age groups. 4 key findings →

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