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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 52 studies with an author at Karolinska Institutet (SE) (page 1 of 3) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 52 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; 12,859 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

Twenty-year changes in dementia occurrence suggest decreasing incidence in central Stockholm, Sweden

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Neurology 2013-04-17

This study is based on 2 cross-sectional surveys of people aged 75 years or over conducted in central Stockholm: the Kungsholmen Project (KP) (1987-1989, n = 1,700) and the Swedish National study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) (2001-2004, n = 1,575). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,700 Evidence: low

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

How can dementia and disability be prevented in older adults: where are we today and where are we going?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Journal of internal medicine 2021-01-10

Ageing of the population, together with population growth, has brought along an ample increase in the number of older individuals living with dementia and disabilities. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

Antidepressant use and cognitive decline in patients with dementia: a national cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. BMC Medicine 2025-02-24

We included 18740 patients (10 205 women [54.5%]; mean [SD] age, 78.2[7.4] years), of which 4271 (22.8%) received at least one prescription for an antidepressant. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 18,740 Evidence: moderate

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

Influence of social network on occurrence of dementia: a community-based longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2000-04-01

Those individuals living alone, and those without any close social ties, both had an adjusted relative risk for developing dementia of 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.1 and 1.0-2.4, respectively). 2 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

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

Brain reserve hypothesis in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2007-08-01

The concept of brain reserve refers to the ability to tolerate the age-related changes and the disease related pathology in the brain without developing clear clinical symptoms or signs. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

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

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

Multidomain Interventions to Prevent Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer's Disease, and Dementia: From FINGER to World-Wide FINGERS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2020-01-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia are a global public health priority, and prevention has been highlighted as a pivotal component in managing the dementia epidemic. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

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

Antipsychotic prescriptions in people with dementia in primary care: a cohort study investigating adherence of dose and duration to UK clinical guidelines

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. The Lancet Psychiatry 2025-09-17

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

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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