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 1–25 of 27 studies in Disparities with an author at Johns Hopkins Medicine (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.

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.

In this study, risk of dementia significantly increased after ischemic stroke, independent of vascular risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 379 Evidence: moderate

Black decedents were less likely than White decedents to use hospice for 3 or more days (132 of 378 [34.9%] vs 385 of 834 [46.2%]; P Conclusions and relevance Despite the increase in the use of hospice care in recent decades, racial disparities in the use of hospice remain, especially for noncancer deaths. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,212 Evidence: moderate

Head injury and 25-year risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2021-03-09

Head injury was associated with risk of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3-1.57), with evidence of dose-response (1 head injury: HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.13-1.39, 2+ head injuries: HR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.86-2.46). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 14,376 Evidence: moderate

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

Diabetes status, poor glycemic control, and longer diabetes duration were associated with worse cognitive outcomes over a median follow-up of 5 years. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,099 Evidence: low

We found no statistically significant difference in measures of WM injury by race and ethnicity after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and socioeconomic status. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,036 Evidence: low

We examined longitudinal associations between the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (ApoE4(+) status) and several cognitive outcomes and tested effect modification by sex. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 113 Evidence: moderate

Sensory impairments were common: 28% had visual impairment, 35% had hearing loss, 22% had poor smell, 12% had touch insensitivity; 26% had more than two impairments, and 5.6% had more than three sensory impairments. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,810 Evidence: low

In contrast to observations in individuals not treated with CART, we found no relationship between CSF markers and neurological status in this CART-using cohort with advanced HIV/AIDS. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 106 Evidence: moderate

Older patients on hemodialysis are at substantial risk of diagnosis with dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and carrying these diagnoses is associated with a twofold higher mortality. 4 key findings →

Participants: 356,668 Evidence: low

AF is associated with greater cognitive decline and increased risk of dementia, independent of ischemic stroke. 5 key findings →

Participants: 515 Evidence: low

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

Evidence: low

Overall, MMSE scores exhibited ceiling effects, poor test-retest reliability, limited sensitivity to subtle brain abnormalities, and a high rate of intrusion elsewhere in the neuropsychological battery. 5 key findings →

Participants: 99 Evidence: low

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infects the brains of a majority of patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and has been linked to the development of a progressive dementia termed "HIV-associated dementia." 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Parental death during childhood is associated with higher prevalence of AD, with different critical periods for father's versus mother's death, with strength of these associations attenuated by remarriage of the widowed parent. 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,108 Evidence: low

Polygenic Risk Scores for Incident Dementia in the Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Genetic Epidemiology 2026-06-23

We found comparable associations between dementia and PRS when comparing a C+T method with only 15 SNPs and PRS derived from Bayesian models that include > 800,000 SNPs (HR 5e‐08 = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.08–1.28; HR CSx = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07−1.27). 3 key findings →

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 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