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 151–175 of 321 studies in How common it is · free to read (page 7 of 13) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 321 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 “How common it is” covers

How common it is — Counting patterns across whole populations: who gets dementia, at what age, and how that is changing.

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.

What the left and right anterior fusiform gyri tell us about semantic memory

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2010-10-15

The study of patients with semantic dementia, a variant of frontotemporal lobar degeneration, has emerged over the last two decades as an important lesion model for studying human semantic memory. 4 key findings →

Participants: 21 Evidence: moderate

Prevalence of dementia in Singapore: Changes across a decade

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-01-27

The weighted prevalence of dementia based on the 10/66 Diagnostic Research Group (DRG) criteria was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-10.7) in the WiSE 2023 study compared to 10% in the WiSE 2013 study (95% CI: 8.7-11.5). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,010 Evidence: low

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of ADRD, evidenced by a subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15–0.89; P = 0.03). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,303 Evidence: moderate

A multinational cohort study of trends in survival following dementia diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Communications Medicine 2025-05-28

Data from 1,272,495 individuals, with the mean age at diagnosis ranging from 76.8 years (South Korea) to 82.9 years (Germany), show that the overall median length of survival following recorded diagnosis ranges from 2.4 years (New Zealand) to 7.9 years (South Korea). 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,272,495 Evidence: moderate

Among our participants, aMCI and VCIND demonstrated prevalence of 14.83% and 2.71%, respectively, and annual incidence (per 1000 person-years) of 69.6 and 10.6, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,051 Evidence: moderate

in 1997, the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease in the United States was 2.32 million (range: 1.09 to 4.58 million); of these individuals, 68% were female. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. BMJ 1997-09-13

A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution.

Plasma p-tau217 and p-tau231 were most effective in diagnosing aMCI/AD (AUC = 0.95 and 0.93, respectively), while p-tau217, p-tau231 and p-tau181 presented the best differential diagnosis for AD from PSP, FTD and DLB respectively (AUC = 0.84, 0.81 and 0.83). α-synuclein was presented as the best biomarker for PSP variant and behavior variant FTD subtypes (AUC = 0.81 and 0.74, respectively). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 668 Evidence: moderate

We found no significant difference in dementia incidence over a 20‐year follow‐up period compared with matched TIA‐free controls. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 297 Evidence: high

Compared with those without CMD, those with CMD multimorbidity had an elevated risk of ACD (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.27, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.95-2.63), AD (HR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.13-1.97), and VD (HR: 3.70, 95% CI: 2.93-4.69). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 287,748 Evidence: moderate

A deep‐learning retinal aging biomarker for cognitive decline and incident dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-03-01

Of 510 memory-clinic subjects(N = 155 cognitive decline), RetiPhenoAge associated with incident cognitive decline (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.64, p = 0.004), and incident dementia (SHR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02-2.01, p = 0.036). 5 key findings →

Participants: 155 Evidence: moderate

Each 1-unit increase in cumulative score was associated with a 3%-8% higher dementia hazard across cohorts. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 23,305 Evidence: moderate

Individuals with both physical frailty and depression had the highest risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 947 Evidence: moderate

The GBT model achieved the best AUC-ROC scores of 0.809-0.833 across 1- to 5-year prediction windows. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 380,269 Evidence: moderate

In our dataset search, we identified 108 910 people with a record indicating dementia at any time. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,819 Evidence: moderate

The Association between Glaucoma and Dementia in a National Cohort of All of Us Participants

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Ophthalmology 2025-09-16

Among the 393 497 All of Us participants with linked EHRs, we identified 9444 individuals (2.40%) with glaucoma diagnoses (excluding participants with diagnoses of dementia before glaucoma) and 37 776 matched controls without glaucoma. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,756 Evidence: moderate

Generational Differences in Age-Specific Dementia Prevalence Rates

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-06-02

In this cross-sectional study examining generational differences in age-specific dementia prevalence across the US, Europe, and England, we found that individuals from more recent birth cohorts had lower proportions of people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 62,437 Evidence: moderate

In Fine-Gray models, dementia risk was higher in female than in male participants (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 1·89, 95% CI 1·30-2·76) and Black than Asian participants (sHR 1·75, 1·07-2·88), lower in APOE ε2 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 0·39, 0·17-0·88), and not significantly higher in APOE ε4 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 1·51, 0·92-2·47). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 805 Evidence: moderate

Although air pollution is well known to be harmful to the lung and airways, it can also damage most other organ systems of the body. 4 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.

1,042 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