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

30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 376–400 of 484 studies in Disparities · free to read (page 16 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.

Other subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,452 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Trends, inequalities, and cross-location similarities in global dementia burden and attributable risk factors across 204 countries and territories: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. International Journal of Surgery 2025-06-20

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

Global burden, quality of care, and cross-country inequalities in Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias from 1990 to 2021

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of Global Health 2025-10-03

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

Enhancing the validity of CAIDE dementia risk scores with resting heart rate and machine learning: An analysis from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center across all races/ethnicities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-08-01

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

Prevalence of dementia in an elderly rural population: effects of age, sex, and education

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 1996-06-01

In both Alzheimer and vascular dementia subtypes, the prevalence rates did not differ between men and women, but increased with age and were higher in subjects with a low level of education. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Genetics of Alzheimer's disease in Caribbean Hispanic and African American populations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Biological psychiatry 2013-07-25

Late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), which is characterized by progressive deterioration in cognition, function, and behavior, is the most common cause of dementia and the sixth leading cause of all deaths, placing a considerable burden on Western societies. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Minority Stress, Discrimination, and Health Outcomes Among LGBTQ+ Older Adult Dementia Caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. American Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® 2025-11-01

Using LGBTQ+ Social Networks, Aging, and Policy Study Wave 3 data (N = 982), this study examines how caregiving for individuals with mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias (MCI/ADRD) impacts everyday stressors, discrimination, and health outcomes among LGBTQ+ older adults in the Southern United States. 1 key finding →

Participants: 982 Evidence: low

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

Qualitative study exploring knowledge and attitudes towards dementia risk prediction, barriers to dementia services and service improvement recommendations with diverse populations in England

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-05-01

Participants possessed some knowledge about dementia but highlighted a need for better access to information about dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

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

Student satisfaction of a dementia education intervention: a cross-sectional study of the time for dementia programme

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMC Medical Education 2025-06-04

78% of students agreed or strongly agreed that Time for Dementia had increased their knowledge of psychosocial issues, and 69% enjoyed the programme. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

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

Cognitive test performance in a community-based nondemented elderly sample in rural India: the Indo-U.S. Cross-National Dementia Epidemiology Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 1996-01-01

Interpretation of cognitive test performance among individuals from a given population requires an understanding of cognitive norms in that population. 5 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 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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