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

30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 48 studies with an author at University of Cambridge (GB) (page 1 of 2) · 30,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 48 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 48 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; 15,654 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.

A two-decade comparison of prevalence of dementia in individuals aged 65 years and older from three geographical areas of England: results of the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study I and II

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2013-07-17

Sensitivity analyses suggest that these estimates are robust to the change in response. 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,500 Evidence: moderate

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

Long-term air pollution exposure and incident dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Lancet Planetary Health 2025-07-24

We found no significant association for exposure to nitrogen oxides (five studies, n=241 409, pooled adjusted HR per 10 μg/m 3 increase, 1·05 [0·97-1·13]; I 2 =44%), PM 10 (four studies, n=246 440, pooled adjusted HR per 15 μg/m 3 increase, 1·52 [0·80-2·87]; I 2 =82%), or annual ozone (four studies, n=419 972, pooled adjusted HR per 45 μg/m 3 increase, 0·82 [0·35-1·92]; I 2 =69%), with moderate to considerable heterogeneity between studies in these pooled analyses. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 24,030,527 Evidence: moderate

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

Incidence and Prevalence of Frontotemporal Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-11-01

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, estimates indicate that FTD is comparable in frequency to dementia with Lewy bodies and occurs at higher rates than progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate

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

Identifying dementia outcomes in UK Biobank: a validation study of primary care, hospital admissions and mortality data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. European journal of epidemiology 2019-02-26

Prospective, population-based studies that recruit participants in mid-life are valuable resources for dementia research. 1 key finding →

Participants: 500,000 Evidence: low

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

Prevalence, correlates and course of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia in the population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 2009-03-01

Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia affect nearly all people with dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 587 Evidence: moderate

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

MRI visual rating scales in the diagnosis of dementia: evaluation in 184 post-mortem confirmed cases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2016-03-01

Additionally, the performance of each scale to predict dementia pathology both individually and in combination was evaluated using a support vector classifier, which was compared with expert scan assessment to estimate clinical value. 2 key findings →

Participants: 184 Evidence: low

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

A brief cognitive test battery to differentiate Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2000-12-01

The ACE is a brief and reliable bedside instrument for early detection of dementia, and offers a simple objective index to differentiate AD and FTD in mildly demented patients. 2 key findings →

Participants: 115 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

The 2022 symposium on dementia and brain aging in low- and middle-income countries: Highlights on research, diagnosis, care, and impact

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2024-05-02

Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Preventing dementia by preventing stroke: The Berlin Manifesto

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2019-07-01

The incidence of stroke and dementia are diverging across the world, rising for those in low- and middle-income countries and falling in those in high-income countries. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Artificial intelligence for dementia-Applied models and digital health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2023-07-26

Such approaches will benefit also from improvements in remote data measurement, whether cognitive (e.g., online), or naturalistic (e.g., watch-based accelerometry). 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: moderate

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
  • 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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