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

32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 26–48 of 48 studies with an author at University of Cambridge (GB) (page 2 of 2) · 32,180 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; 17,651 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.

Dementia prevention in memory clinics: recommendations from the European task force for brain health services

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The Lancet regional health. Europe 2023-01-31

Observational population studies indicate that prevention of dementia and cognitive decline is being accomplished, possibly as an unintended result of better vascular prevention and healthier lifestyles. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Prevalence of dementia in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. International journal of epidemiology 2018-06-01

Geographical variation in dementia prevalence is confirmed in this update, whereas evidence on increasing trends is still insufficient. 1 key finding →

Participants: 76 Evidence: low

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

CAMDEX. A standardised instrument for the diagnosis of mental disorder in the elderly with special reference to the early detection of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 1986-12-01

A new interview schedule for the diagnosis and measurement of dementia in the elderly is described. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Clinical features of frontal lobe dementia in comparison to Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of neural transmission. Supplementum 1996-01-01

Over the past decade it has become evident that a substantial minority of patients with primary dementing diseases, particularly those presenting in the presenium, have dementia of frontal lobe type (DFT) due to non-Alzheimer's pathology. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate

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

Prevalence and co-occurrence of dementia risk factors in Denmark: A nationwide study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-09-01

In the whole population (N = 1,214,286) and the subpopulation (N = 88,565), 5 % had no risk factors, 12 % had only one, and 82 % had multiple. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,214,286 Evidence: moderate

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

Why has therapy development for dementia failed in the last two decades?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2015-12-19

The success rate of the pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) for dementia drugs has been abysmally low, in the last two decades. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Clinical practice with anti-dementia drugs: A revised (third) consensus statement from the British Association for Psychopharmacology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) 2017-01-20

Though results of pivotal studies in early (prodromal/mild) Alzheimer's disease are awaited, results to date in more established (mild to moderate) Alzheimer's disease have been equivocal and no disease modifying agents are either licensed or can be currently recommended for clinical use. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

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

Nonfluent progressive aphasia and semantic dementia: a comparative neuropsychological study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS 1996-11-01

Two patients with nonfluent progressive aphasia, who have been studied longitudinally, are contrasted with a group of 5 patients with fluent progressive aphasia or semantic dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

O4–04–02: Prevalence studies of dementia in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2013-07-01

Several reviews have summarized the prevalence of dementia in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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

Deep cervical lymphatic-venous anastomosis in dementia: a clinical and mechanistic evaluation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. International Journal of Surgery 2025-12-17

Within one week after dcLVA, 64.3% of patients demonstrated MMSE improvement, with further functional gains observed in continence, emotional regulation, motor coordination, and feeding independence. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

The word processing deficit in semantic dementia: all categories are equal, but some categories are more equal than others

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of cognitive neuroscience 2010-09-01

It has been claimed that semantic dementia (SD), the temporal variant of fronto-temporal dementia, is characterized by an across-the-board deficit affecting all types of conceptual knowledge. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Estimating the impact of risk factor reduction on dementia prevalence in New Zealand

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-07-01

The PIF for the total NZ population following a 15% risk factor reduction was 14.6% (95% confidence interval: 7.7-21.1) Modeled projections demonstrated prevalence reduction over time, from 1.0% at 10 years to 4.2% at 30 years. 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. 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.

1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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

Last updated