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.

Find studies

Showing 1–21 of 21 studies in Disparities · 30,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 21 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 21 studies tagged reserve — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Disparities” covers

Disparities — Differences in dementia risk, diagnosis and care across race, ethnicity, income, geography and sex.

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.

Traumatic Brain Injury, Seizures, and Cognitive Impairment Among Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA network open 2024-08-01

Among the cohort of 7180 older adults (median age, 74 years [range, 65-102 years]; 4729 women [65.9%]), 1036 were African American or Black (14.4%), 21 were American Indian or Alaska Native (0.3%), 143 were Asian (2.0%), 332 were Hispanic (4.6%), and 5648 were non-Hispanic White (78.7%); the median educational level was 16.0 years (range, 1.0-29.0 years). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

ϵ4 prevalence in Black (46%) and White participants (46%) was almost double that of Latino participants (24%). ϵ4 was associated with poorer baseline episodic memory only in White participants (p = .001), but had a moderately strong association with episodic memory change across all racial/ethnic groups (Blacks= -.061 SD/year, Latinos = -.055,Whites= -.055). ϵ4 association with semantic memory change was strongest in White participants (-.071), intermediate in Latino participants (-.041), and weakest in Black participants (-.022). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 297 Evidence: moderate

ObjectivesIdentifying modifiable factors that shape cognitive aging trajectories is a central goal in aging research. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,140 Evidence: moderate

Blacks and Hispanics were more prone to falsely positive perceptions of their cognitive function in the presence of cognitive impairment than non-Hispanic Whites. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,096 Evidence: low

Compared with food secure older adults, those reporting food insecurity experienced worsened cognitive functioning over time (B = -0.63, p < .001), and they were more likely to have onset of cognitive impairment (OR= 1.46, p < .001) in the 6-y observation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,638 Evidence: low

Positive associations between self-efficacy and language did not significantly differ across race/ethnicity, although the bivariate association between self-efficacy and language was not significant among Hispanics. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 548 Evidence: moderate

Although a substantial body of research has identified brain MRI measures as important markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk, progression, and treatment response, most of that research has been performed in non-Hispanic white American populations, leading to questions about the utility of the brain MRI measures among individuals of other races or ethnicities. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In this study, the authors evaluated whether the association between low educational level and increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia may be explained by occupation-based socioeconomic status (SES). 5 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: moderate

Growing epidemiological evidence suggests that premorbid participation in cognitive leisure activities (CLA) reduces the risk of dementia by increasing cognitive reserve. 3 key findings →

Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate

Some studies have suggested that people with a high educational level have a lower risk of developing dementia compared to people with a low educational level. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,022 Evidence: low

Childhood socioeconomic position and cognitive function in adulthood

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. International journal of epidemiology 2001-04-01

Higher SEP during childhood and greater educational attainment are both associated with cognitive function in adulthood, with mothers and fathers each contributing to their offspring's formative cognitive development and later life cognitive ability (albeit in different ways). 4 key findings →

Participants: 496 Evidence: low

White respondents lived a greater percentage of their remaining lives cognitively healthy than their minority Black or Hispanic counterparts, regardless of level of education. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in Morocco: A population-based study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-10-22

This nationwide study provides epidemiological data on dementia and MCI among adults aged ≥ 60 years across all 12 administrative regions of Morocco. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,662 Evidence: low

↑ 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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