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 1,201–1,225 of 1,246 studies (page 49 of 50) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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; 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.

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use Among Patients With Dementia in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Medical Care 2025-05-19

MA-PD enrollees had significantly lower utilization of PIMs than standalone PDP enrollees: a 0.7 percentage-point [95% CI: 0.5, 0.8] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia; a 3.1 percentage-point [2.6, 3.5] lower prevalence of potentially harmful drug-disease interactions in older adults with dementia and a history of falls; and a 0.5 percentage-point [0.4, 0.6] lower prevalence of high-risk medications in older adults. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

PC‐009: Integrated medical and case management dementia model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2013-07-01

MemoryCare, in its 13th year of operation in Asheville, NC, is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to providing medical care to older adults with cognitive impairment inclusive of a case management component that provides support and education to their families and caregivers. 1 key finding →

Participants: 980 Evidence: low

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

Shared Commitment and Distinct Innovations in Dementia Policy Development and Implementation in China, Japan, and South Korea

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry 2026-03-29

In conclusion, while differing in healthcare infrastructure, China, Japan, and South Korea converge in anchoring dementia care within the community. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Urban–rural disparities in dementia-related mortality among older adults in the U.S. from 1999 to 2020

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus 2025-10-04

Dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), is a major cause of death among older adults in the United States. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Healthy Brain Healthy Life: an innovative and culturally tailored approach to dementia prevention in minority ethnic communities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Research for All 2025-11-13

Despite having an increased risk of developing dementia, individuals from minority ethnic communities are largely overlooked by research and dementia services and are less likely to receive timely diagnosis and appropriate support. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

A machine learning framework for early-stage dementia-friendly architectural design evaluation using visual access metrics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Architectural Intelligence 2025-07-10

The results suggest a viable pathway for developing ML support tools to provide feedback on DDP compliance at an early design stage. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A Smart RFID-Driven System for Dementia Patient Tracking: A Machine Learning Approach for Monitoring and Localization

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. International Journal of Technology 2025-12-01

The global increase in the elderly population, which is expected to reach 2.1 billion by 2050, has highlighted the need for reliable monitoring systems to assist elderly individuals, especially those with dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Cognitive Functioning of Older Women with Diverse Physical Fitness and Independence – Limitations of Dementia Screening in Primary Healthcare

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Medical Studies 2025-11-19

Wprowadzenie Obniżenie poziomu funkcjonowania poznawczego to częsty problem osób w wieku podeszłym, zwłaszcza kobiet, a jednym z czynników ryzyka jest brak aktywności fizycznej. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Precision Nutrition for Dementia: Exploring the Potential in Mitigating Dementia Progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Journal of dementia and Alzheimer's disease 2025-08-14

Precision nutrition is a tailored dietary approach that considers an individual’s genetic and metabolic profile, lifestyle factors, and specific nutritional needs to improve health and potentially modify disease progression. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review 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 27,380 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