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 776–800 of 824 studies · free to read (page 32 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.

Employment Status, Decision-Making, and Sleep Among Hispanic and Latinx Dementia Family Caregivers: A Secondary Data Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Western Journal of Nursing Research 2025-06-16

Participants had a mean age of 55.1 years (SD = 14), were predominantly female, and primarily cared for a parent. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Emerging Trends in Early Dementia Diagnosis: An Analysis on Advanced Machine Learning Approaches

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. ACM Computing Surveys 2025-08-28

Dementia is the waning of cognitive abilities, which is typically seen with the natural aging process and includes issues with memory, language, and problem-solving abilities. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Cognitive Activity From Early to Late Life and the Risk of AD Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Neurology Open Access 2025-01-10

Participation in late-life cognitive activities has been associated with a slower rate of cognitive decline and reduced risk of dementia; however, whether this association is independent of earlier experiences is unclear. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

ICF Application and Assessment Tool Analysis for Dysphagia Evaluation in Patients with Dementia: A Scoping Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Journal of the Korean Dysphagia Society 2025-12-30

Instrumental assessments (Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study [VFSS], Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing [FEES]) and the Water Swallow Test were most frequently used.ICF mapping revealed that 96.7% of tools focused on body functions, while only approximately 20% addressed participation and environmental factors. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY HOME HEALTH CARE FOR PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2024-12-01

Using multiple Medicare Public Use Files (PUF), including star ratings for home health quality of patient care (QoPC), home health care CAHPS survey (HHCAHPS), county-level ADRD prevalence, and Medicare FFS enrollment, we found that the median county-level number of home health agencies was 15 (IQR 8-29), star rating was 3.4 (IQR 3.1-3.7) for QoPC and 3.8 (IQR 3.5-4.0) for HHCAHPS. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Leveraging Explainable AI for Dementia Classification: A Machine Learning Approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. International Journal of Applied Sciences & Development 2025-01-29

In last two decades the growing life expectancy has spiralled the prevalence of neurogenerative disorder such as Dementia among elderly population posing a significant challenge to mental health globally. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Community-Based Participatory Research on Art Engagement for People with Dementia in Japan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

These findings suggest that participatory art, when integrated into community activities, can be a valuable resource for people with dementia and MCI, fostering social participation and self-expression. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

P4‐444: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANNING FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH DEMENTIA: A COMPARISON OF COUNTY LEVEL DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS WITH RECENT DEMENTIA PREVALENCE ESTIMATES IN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2019-07-01

The Healthy Brain Initiative: The Public Health Road Map for State and National Partnerships was recently updated for years 2018-2022, which includes recommendations for implementing emergency preparedness (EP) measures at the state and local levels with attention to the unique needs of people living with Alzheimer's disease and other related dementias (ADRD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Chicago ZIP Code-Linked Area Deprivation Index as a Predictor of Dementia Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. University of Chicago 2026-06-04

Dementia risk is influenced by biological and lifestyle factors as well as broader socioeconomic conditions; however, the extent to which socioeconomic deprivation creates structural exposures that affect cognitive aging remains unclear. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Rural and Urban Differences in Dementia Diagnosis in the Western U.S

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Of 6,911,104 patients (min=Idaho: 45,160; max=California: 2.46 million), we observed a substantial difference in overall diagnosed prevalence across states of residence: Oregon and Montana had the highest diagnosed prevalence (6.6% and 6.5%, respectively); New Mexico had the lowest (2.3%). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Broadband Availability and Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias Prevalence in Central Appalachia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Journal of Social Service Research 2026-01-19

Geographical differences in Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) prevalence may be driven by under-diagnosis due to insufficient healthcare access. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Rural‐urban disparities in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia: The role of state‐level nurse practitioner policies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

ADRD mortality rates were slightly higher in rural areas compared to urban areas, with no significant differences between rural-adjacent and rural-nonadjacent counties in recent years. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use Among Patients With Dementia in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Medical Care 2025-05-19

MA-PD enrollees had significantly lower utilization of PIMs than standalone PDP enrollees: a 0.7 percentage-point [95% CI: 0.5, 0.8] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia; a 3.1 percentage-point [2.6, 3.5] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia and a history of falls; and a 0.5 percentage-point [0.4, 0.6] lower prevalence of high-risk medications in older adults. 3 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