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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 351–375 of 1,246 studies (page 15 of 50) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 1,246 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.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,259 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.

Remote digital cognitive assessment for aging and dementia using the Oxford Cognitive Testing Portal OCTAL

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. npj Digital Medicine 2026-01-15

The global rise in dementia necessitates scalable cognitive assessments that can evolve to serve both clinical and research applications. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,664 Evidence: moderate

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

Harmonized prevalence estimates of dementia in Europe vary strongly with childhood education

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2025-04-23

Up-to-date, strictly cross-nationally comparable and nationally representative data on cognitive health are essential for our understanding of the dementia-related challenges in healthcare, to detect shortcomings in healthcare systems and to design effective prevention strategies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 47,773 Evidence: low

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

Knowledge and practice of healthy behaviors for dementia and stroke prevention in a United States cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2025-04-30

At least 45% of dementia and 60% of stroke cases are due to modifiable risk factors and could in part be prevented through healthy behavior. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,478 Evidence: moderate

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

Voiceprints of cognitive impairment: analyzing digital voice for early detection of Alzheimer’s and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. npj Dementia 2025-11-03

Early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical yet challenging, particularly in younger individuals. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 120 Evidence: moderate

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

An update on semantic dementia: genetics, imaging, and pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2016-12-05

Progressive and relatively circumscribed loss of semantic knowledge, referred to as semantic dementia (SD) which falls under the broader umbrella of frontotemporal dementia, was officially identified as a clinical syndrome less than 50 years ago. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Behavioural and psychological symptoms in general hospital patients with dementia, distress for nursing staff and complications in care: results of the General Hospital Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences 2017-01-09

BPSD are common in older hospital patients with dementia and associated with considerable distress in nursing staff, as well as a wide range of special treatments needs and additional behavioural and medical complications. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,469 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Dementia after stroke: baseline frequency, risks, and clinical features in a hospitalized cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 1992-06-01

We determined the frequency of dementia in a cohort of 251 patients aged greater than or equal to 60 years hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke, based on examinations performed 3 months after stroke onset. 5 key findings →

Participants: 251 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Undiagnosed dementia and mortality among older adults in the United States and Brazil: A cross-national cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2026-04-29

Undiagnosed dementia is common and associated with increased mortality, identifying a vulnerable population missed by current diagnostic pathways. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 13,142 Evidence: moderate

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

Recommendations of the 5th Canadian Consensus Conference on the diagnosis and treatment of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2020-07-29

Since 1989, four Canadian Consensus Conferences on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD) have provided evidence-based dementia guidelines for Canadian clinicians and researchers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Diagnosis and treatment of dementia: 1. Risk assessment and primary prevention of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 2008-02-01

Of 3424 articles on potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, 1719 met our inclusion criteria; 60 were deemed to be of good or fair quality. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. The American journal of psychiatry 1982-09-01

Cognitive decline associated with old age and consistent with the diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia is a unique clinical syndrome with characteristic phenomena and progression. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

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

Alzheimer's Association recommendations for operationalizing the detection of cognitive impairment during the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit in a primary care setting

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2012-12-20

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act added a new Medicare benefit, the Annual Wellness Visit (AWV), effective January 1, 2011. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

From across this tag

10 of the 1,233 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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