36/100
Dementia cases are projected to triple globally by 2050, largely driven by an aging population. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In adults aged ≥65 years, dementia with CAD was the cause of 1,256,284 deaths between 1999 and 2023. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
How does place shape informal caregiving for and by ageing people with cognitive impairment in rural South Africa? 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Commonalities emerged in barriers for accessing dementia training. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Seventeen articles were included. People with dementia from ethnic minority groups report lower quality care received. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Low income and vulnerability to arterial hypertension were the primary contributors to AD/ADRD disparities, with cerebrovascular diseases and depression as notable secondary predictors. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Synthesis of the results identified three overarching key principles and seven actionable practices for consideration when designing or delivering dementia education to the rural and remote health and aged care workforce. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Keeping current with the burden and risk factors of Alzheimer disease and other dementias (ADOD) from global to national levels is critical for healthcare planning, prevention strategies, and the allocation of resources. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease and related dementias disproportionately affect minority racial and ethnic communities. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study included seven healthcare workers, five participants with dementia and their caregivers, and 10 persons without dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Based on the stakeholder responses from fifteen providers and twenty community members, there was strong consensus in the need for local brain health services. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) offers effective, flexible approaches well suited to conduct health research with underrepresented populations that can be tailored to unique social, cultural, and geographic contexts. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
• Brain health depends on certain environmental resources of which socioeconomically disadvantaged people in particular are deprived. • Resource deprivation may increase dementia risk due to reduced attainment for deprived populations. • Improving attainment across the lifetime for disadvantaged individuals should be a public health priority for dementia prevention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
32/100
Key barriers included limited digital literacy, resistance to technology and privacy concerns, as well as competing organisational priorities, and inadequate technological infrastructure. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Across the literature, it is evident that health inequalities currently exist and exacerbate the disparities in the care of BAME dementia patients. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that represents a growing challenge to global health, especially in aging populations. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Future research should leverage perspectives of former caregivers to assist with improving outcomes for Black caregivers, thereby promoting health equity. [ Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 51 (6), 30–37.] 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), is a major cause of death among older adults in the United States. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite having an increased risk of developing dementia, individuals from minority ethnic communities are largely overlooked by research and dementia services and are less likely to receive timely diagnosis and appropriate support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals aged 70 and above experiencing memory loss in Cochran and Parmer Counties had a statistically significant association with cognitive impairment (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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