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 1–25 of 36 studies in Disparities with an author at Harvard University (US) (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

African ancestry GWAS of dementia in a large military cohort identifies significant risk loci

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2022-12-22

While genome wide association studies (GWASs) of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) in European (EUR) ancestry cohorts have identified approximately 83 potentially independent AD risk loci, progress in non-European populations has lagged. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,385 Evidence: high

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

Effect of a Lay Counselor Intervention on Prevention of Major Depression in Older Adults Living in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA psychiatry 2019-01-01

The study enrolled 181 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.6 [7.2] years; 114 [63.0%] female): 91 to the intervention arm (depression in later life [DIL] intervention) and 90 to care as usual (CAU). 1 key finding →

Participants: 181 Evidence: high

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

Brain clocks capture diversity and disparities in aging and dementia across geographically diverse populations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Nature medicine 2024-08-26

Brain clocks, which quantify discrepancies between brain age and chronological age, hold promise for understanding brain health and disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,306 Evidence: low

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

Validation of a polygenic risk score for dementia in black and white individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Brain and behavior 2014-07-18

Non-Hispanic white and NHB Health and Retirement Study (HRS) participants provided genetic information and either a composite memory score (n = 10,401) or a dementia probability score (n = 7690). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 10,401 Evidence: high

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

Assessing end-of-life preferences for advanced dementia in rural patients using an educational video: a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Journal of palliative medicine 2011-01-21

Rural subjects with higher health literacy were more likely to want comfort care compared to those with lower levels of health literacy. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 43 Evidence: high

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

Incident dementia and long-term exposure to constituents of fine particle air pollution: A national cohort study in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2022-12-27

Growing evidence suggests that fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) likely increases the risks of dementia, yet little is known about the relative contributions of different constituents. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Educational disparities in brain health and dementia across Latin America and the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2024-08-13

The results underscore the impact of education on brain structure and function in LA, highlighting the importance of incorporating educational factors into diagnosing, care, and prevention, and emphasizing the need for global diversity in research. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,412 Evidence: low

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

Social exposome and brain health outcomes of dementia across Latin America

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nature Communications 2025-09-11

A multidimensional social exposome (MSE)-the combined lifespan measures of education, food insecurity, financial status, access to healthcare, childhood experiences, and more-may shape dementia risk and brain health over the lifespan, particularly in underserved regions like Latin America. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,211 Evidence: low

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

The 2022 symposium on dementia and brain aging in low- and middle-income countries: Highlights on research, diagnosis, care, and impact

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2024-05-02

Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Long-term exposure to air pollution and mortality in a Danish nationwide administrative cohort study: Beyond mortality from cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Environment international 2022-04-12

Long-term exposure to PM 2.5 , NO 2 , and/or BC in Denmark were associated with mortality beyond cardiorespiratory diseases, including diabetes, dementia, psychiatric disorders, asthma, and ALRI. 5 key findings →

Participants: 803,881 Evidence: moderate

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

Dementia in Latin America: Paving the way toward a regional action plan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2020-11-20

Across Latin American and Caribbean countries (LACs), the fight against dementia faces pressing challenges, such as heterogeneity, diversity, political instability, and socioeconomic disparities. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Addressing the disparities in dementia risk, early detection and care in Latino populations: Highlights from the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2022-02-24

The Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Trends and Factors Associated with Place of Death for Individuals with Dementia in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2019-10-14

As ADRD deaths at home increase, the need for caregiver support and home-based palliative care may become more critical. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Validity and reliability of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for dementia assessment in rural South Africa

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-08-01

Index participants averaged 71.9 years, with > 50% lacking formal education. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,309 Evidence: moderate

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

Expected and diagnosed rates of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in the U.S. Medicare population: observational analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2023-07-22

These results highlight the need to increase the overall detection rates of MCI and of dementia particularly in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Modifiable Barriers for Recruitment and Retention of Older Adults Participants from Underrepresented Minorities in Alzheimer's Disease Research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2021-01-01

Clinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials currently face a critical shortfall of thousands of eligible participants, which inflates the duration and cost of the clinical study as well as threatens the scientific merit of promising clinical interventions. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

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

↑ 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