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 1–25 of 45 studies with an author at King's College London (GB) (page 1 of 2) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 45 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 45 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.

Other 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.

The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and metaanalysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2013-01-01

The detailed estimates in this study constitute the best current basis for policymaking, planning, and allocation of health and welfare resources in dementia care. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

Equity in the delivery of community healthcare to older people: findings from 10/66 Dementia Research Group cross-sectional surveys in Latin America, China, India and Nigeria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. BMC health services research 2011-06-28

Variation in service use among sites was most plausibly accounted for by stark differences in the extent of out-of-pocket expenses, and the ability of older people and their families to afford them. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17,944 Evidence: high

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

Accuracy of general hospital dementia diagnoses in England: Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of diagnostic accuracy 2008-2016

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2018-04-25

Dementia diagnosis recording in general hospitals is increasing but remains less likely in some groups. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 21,387 Evidence: moderate

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

Incidence and prediction of falls in dementia: a prospective study in older people

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. PloS one 2009-05-13

The management of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, autonomic symptoms and depression, and the encouragement of physical activity may provide the core elements for the most fruitful strategy to reduce falls in people with dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 179 Evidence: high

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

Contribution of chronic diseases to disability in elderly people in countries with low and middle incomes: a 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2009-11-01

When zero inflation was taken into account, between-site differences in disability scores were largely attributable to compositional differences in health and sociodemographic characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 15 Evidence: low

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

Intrinsic capacity and its associations with incident dependence and mortality in 10/66 Dementia Research Group studies in Latin America, India, and China: A population-based cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2021-09-14

We aimed to inform planning by assessing intrinsic capacity prevalence, by characterising the target group, and by validating the general approach-testing hypotheses that DIC was consistently associated with higher risks of incident dependence and death. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 17,031 Evidence: moderate

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

Trends in dementia diagnosis rates in UK ethnic groups: analysis of UK primary care data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Clinical epidemiology 2018-08-08

People from the black ethnic group had a higher incidence of dementia diagnosis and those from the Asian ethnic group had lower incidence compared with the white ethnic group. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,511,681 Evidence: moderate

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

Research priorities to reduce the global burden of dementia by 2025

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2016-10-11

At the First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia in March, 2015, 160 delegates, including representatives from 80 WHO Member States and four UN agencies, agreed on a call for action to reduce the global burden of dementia by fostering a collective effort to advance research. 5 key findings →

Participants: 201 Evidence: low

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

Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia in developing countries: prevalence, management, and risk factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2008-07-28

Despite mortality due to communicable diseases, poverty, and human conflicts, dementia incidence is destined to increase in the developing world in tandem with the ageing population. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Development and validation of a dementia risk score in the UK Biobank and Whitehall II cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. BMJ mental health 2023-07-01

Current dementia risk scores have had limited success in consistently identifying at-risk individuals across different ages and geographical locations. 4 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

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

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

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

Prediction of dementia risk in low-income and middle-income countries (the 10/66 Study): an independent external validation of existing models

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The Lancet. Global health 2020-04-01

However, most people with dementia live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where dementia risk prediction research is almost non-existent and the ability of current models to predict dementia is unknown. 4 key findings →

Participants: 143 Evidence: low

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

Chronic disease prevalence and care among the elderly in urban and rural Beijing, China - a 10/66 Dementia Research Group cross-sectional survey

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. BMC public health 2009-10-21

Apparent better health in Daxing might be explained by under-diagnosis, under-reporting or selective mortality. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,002 Evidence: low

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

Predicting incident dementia 3-8 years after brief cognitive tests in the UK Biobank prospective study of 500,000 people

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2019-10-13

Prospective studies reporting associations between cognitive performance and subsequent incident dementia have been subject to attrition bias. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,051 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. Show only studies that are free to read

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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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