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 701–725 of 1,246 studies (page 29 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.

Multicentre population-based dementia prevalence survey in Japan: a preliminary report

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Psychogeriatrics : the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society 2012-06-01

Community-based surveys were performed in seven rural areas in Japan to investigate the prevalence of dementia and illnesses causing dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,394 Evidence: low

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

Age of dementia diagnosis in community dwelling bilingual and monolingual Hispanic Americans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior 2014-12-19

Bilingualism has been reported to delay the age of retrospective report of first symptom in dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,789 Evidence: low

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

Estimates of diagnosed dementia prevalence and incidence among diverse beneficiaries in traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring 2023-07-01

Approximately half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), a private plan alternative to traditional Medicare (TM). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Variations in Medicare Advantage Switching Rates Among African American and Hispanic Medicare Beneficiaries With Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias, by Sex and Dual Eligibility

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series B 2022-09-08

The study included 2,284,175 FFS Medicare beneficiaries with an ADRD diagnosis in 2017. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,284,175 Evidence: low

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

Tea, talk and technology: patient and public involvement to improve connected health ‘wearables’ research in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017-08-01

Discussions revealed that people were generally supportive of this type of research, provided they gave informed consent and that devices were discreet, comfortable and easy to use. 4 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

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

General Practice Clinical Data Help Identify Dementia Hotspots: A Novel Geospatial Analysis Approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2017-11-10

We have a poor understanding of whether dementia clusters geographically, how this occurs, and how dementia may relate to socio-demographic factors. 5 key findings →

Participants: 14,746 Evidence: low

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

Prevalence of dementia diagnosis in Sweden by geographical region and sociodemographic subgroups: a nationwide observational study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe 2024-08-16

At the end of 2022, 3.7% (92,293/2,483,798) of people aged ≥62 years in Sweden had a dementia diagnosis from specialist care or drug prescriptions and varied from 0.6% in ages 62-69 to 14.8% in ages ≥90. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Who misses MCI diagnosis before dementia?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Among 32,430 individuals (mean age at first hospital encounter 76.6±10.9 years; 59.1% female; 4.2% African American; 5.0% Hispanic), only 16.0% received an MCI diagnosis before their dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Participants: 32,430 Evidence: low

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

Assessing the Impact of Sociodemographic Factors on Artificial Intelligence Models in Predicting Dementia: Retrospective Cohort Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. JMIR Medical Informatics 2026-01-07

Across both cohorts, individuals with lower SES generally exhibited higher BERs (worse performance) than high SES groups, confirming the presence of bias. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,041 Evidence: moderate

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

Searching for responders to multidomain dementia prevention in late life: A pooled analysis of individual participant data from the MAPT and preDIVA trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-01-17

Four hundred eighty-six participants developed dementia during 37,782 person-years of follow-up. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,205 Evidence: low

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

Acceptable standards for clinic‐based digital cognitive assessments: Recommendations from the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

The rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, combined with persistent underdiagnosis, is driving an increased need for scalable cognitive assessment tools. 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