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.

Find studies

Showing 276–300 of 484 studies in Disparities · free to read (page 12 of 20) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 484 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Disparities” covers

Disparities — Differences in dementia risk, diagnosis and care across race, ethnicity, income, geography and sex.

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.

Participation rates were good in both phases of the NEDICES baseline study, and this was influenced by age, sex and setting of the participants. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Greater lifetime stress predicted poorer later-life cognition, and, in a small sample of African Americans, faster declines in a key domain of episodic memory. 4 key findings →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

Most older patients surviving AMI have measurable CIND. 2 key findings →

Participants: 772 Evidence: low

This study enrolled 184 middle-aged and older women (95 Non-Hispanic White and 89 Hispanic/Latino) who provided in-home hands-on care to an elderly relative with Alzheimer's disease or another form of dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 184 Evidence: low

These findings demonstrate that early life experiences influence the trajectory of cognitive aging. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Measuring primary care patients' attitudes about dementia screening

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2008-08-01

The PRISM-PC questionnaire captures primary care patients' acceptance, perceived harms, and perceived benefits of dementia screening. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 315 Evidence: low

By 2060, ADRD cases in China are projected to reach approximately 49.89 million, with the highest prevalence and economic burden concentrated in provinces such as Shandong, Sichuan, Jiangsu, Henan, and Guangdong. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Examining the risk of clinically diagnosed dementia in older adults, our study found a 65% increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia in individuals with diabetes compared with those without. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

ARTS is associated with vascular risk factors, MCI, dementia, and stroke

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-06-30

Higher ARTS score was associated (all ps < 0.01) with incident MCI (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.29), dementia (HR = 1.33), and stroke (HR = 1.52) and with diastolic/systolic blood pressure, self-reported hypertension, claudication, congestive heart failure, smoking, and glomerular filtration rate in the combined sample. 5 key findings →

Participants: 707 Evidence: low

Inequalities in the Duration and Lifetime Risk of Dementia in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Demography 2025-07-31

Dementia prevalence exceeds 40% for individuals in advanced old age, but that figure is not informative about the lifetime risk of ever having dementia or the risk of having dementia for different durations. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Virtual data collection was highly feasible in both studies, successfully engaging participants in ADRD research, including those from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate

In 2023, there were 205,507 people with dementia in the CPRD database, 40,244 with Parkinson's disease, 3515 with MND and 1672 with Huntington's disease. 5 key findings →

Participants: 205,507 Evidence: low

Educational attainment and cognitive decline in old age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2009-02-01

The results suggest that education is robustly associated with level of cognitive function but not with rate of cognitive decline and that the former association primarily accounts for education's correlation with risk of dementia in old age. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most frequent cause of dementia, where the abnormal accumulation of beta-amyloid (Aβ) and tau lead to neurodegeneration as well as loss of cognitive, behavioral, and functional abilities. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We describe the history, development, and success of the recruitment and screening procedures used by researchers at the University of California, Davis Alzheimer's Disease Center (UCD ADC) to facilitate minority enrollment in research. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

When compared to edentulous elderly patients, patients with remaining teeth were younger at admittance, were more often non-cooperative, and had a poorer oral health and higher need for dental care. 5 key findings →

Participants: 725 Evidence: low

While educational disparities in dementia incidence are well-known, whether and to what extent they persist beyond dementia onset is less explored. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Rural-Urban Differences in Social Isolation and Dementia Risk Among Older Adults in India

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Older adults in rural India experience higher social isolation due to limited social and healthcare resources. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 71,513 Evidence: moderate

The results confirm that unilateral parkinsonism unresponsive to levodopa and limb ideomotor apraxia are the clinical hallmarks of corticobasal degeneration, and only a minority of patients with corticobasal degeneration present with dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This article outlines methodological enhancements to better evaluate treatment approaches in future registration trials and provides an algorithm for improving the treatment of these patients in nursing home and non-nursing home settings. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Previous studies have indicated a prevalence of dementia in older admissions of ∼42% in a single London teaching hospital, and 21% in four Queensland hospitals. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Determinants of medical expenditures in the last 6 months of life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2011-02-01

It was hypothesized that race or ethnicity, social support, and functional status are independently associated with treatment intensity and controlling for regional characteristics, and that individual characteristics account for a substantial proportion of expenditure variation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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