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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 526–550 of 1,247 studies (page 22 of 50) · 28,180 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 1,247 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; 13,658 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 disappearing subject: exclusion of people with cognitive impairment and dementia from geriatrics research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2012-01-30

All original research articles published in 2008 and 2009 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (n = 434) were reviewed using a structured data collection tool. 4 key findings →

Participants: 434 Evidence: low

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

Social robots in advanced dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2015-09-03

Pilot studies applying a humanoid robot (NAO), a pet robot (PARO) and a real animal (DOG) in therapy sessions of patients with dementia in a nursing home and a day care center. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 101 Evidence: low

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

Effective feature learning and fusion of multimodality data using stage-wise deep neural network for dementia diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Human brain mapping 2018-11-01

In this article, the authors aim to maximally utilize multimodality neuroimaging and genetic data for identifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its prodromal status, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), from normal aging subjects. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Trends in Incident Dementia Diagnosis Before and After Medicare Risk Adjustment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2023-12-15

This cohort study examines rates of new diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementias among beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage plans vs traditional Medicare from 2016 through 2020. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Geographic disparities in Alzheimer's disease and related dementia mortality in the US: Comparing impacts of place of birth and place of residence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. SSM - Population Health 2024-08-23

We found that both state of birth and state of residence account for a modest portion of ADRD mortality variation. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Mayo Normative Studies: regression‐based normative data for remote self‐administration of the Stricker Learning Span, Symbols Test and Mayo Test Drive Screening Battery Composite for ages 33‐100 and validation in MCI and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Typical normative models appear appropriate for remote self‐administered measures and are sensitive to cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Participants: 167 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Psoriasis and dementia: A population‐based matched cohort study of adults in England

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology 2025-01-01

Among 360,014 individuals with psoriasis and 1,799,617 without, psoriasis was associated with a small increased risk of all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08; absolute rate difference 24 per 100,000 person-years). 5 key findings →

Participants: 360,014 Evidence: moderate

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

Multidomain interventions: state-of-the-art and future directions for protocols to implement precision dementia risk reduction. A user manual for Brain Health Services-part 4 of 6

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2021-10-11

Multidomain intervention studies conducted so far appear to have mixed results and substantial variability in target populations, format and intensity of interventions, choice of control conditions, and outcome measures. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Prestroke dementia is associated with poor outcomes after reperfusion therapy among elderly stroke patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association 2011-12-17

Among the elderly, prestroke dementia is a powerful independent predictor of in-hospital mortality after acute reperfusion therapy for stroke. 2 key findings →

Participants: 153 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Barriers to obtaining consent in dementia research: implications for surrogate decision-making

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1998-03-01

Absence of functional surrogate decision-makers is a major barrier to research and clinical decision-making for hospitalized patients with advanced dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 68 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Clinical determinants of poststroke dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Stroke 1998-01-01

Our data suggest that a single explanation for poststroke dementia is not adequate; rather, multiple factors including stroke features (dysphasia, major dominant stroke syndrome), host characteristics (educational level), and prior cerebrovascular disease each independently contribute to the risk. 3 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Preservation of the capacity to appoint a proxy decision maker: implications for dementia research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Archives of general psychiatry 2011-02-01

A substantial proportion of persons with AD who were thought incapable of consenting to lower-risk or higher-risk studies have preserved capacity for appointing a research proxy. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

A claims data-based comparison of comorbidity in individuals with and without dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. BMC geriatrics 2014-01-28

Individuals with dementia were more likely to be diagnosed with 15 comorbidity complexes, including Parkinson's, stroke, diabetes, atherosclerosis (supposed dementia risk factors) or fluids and electrolyte disorders, insomnia, incontinence, pneumonia, fractures and injuries (supposed sequelae). 3 key findings →

Participants: 9,139 Evidence: low

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

From across this tag

10 of the 1,234 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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