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 34 studies in Disparities in Neurology (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 34 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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.

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.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Population-Attributable Fractions of Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. Neurology 2024-01-17

Among 91,881 participants (mean age 59.3 at baseline, 55.0% female participants), 16,507 incident ADRD cases were identified from Medicare claims (1999-2016, mean follow-up 9.3 years). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 91,881 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Midlife Vascular Risk Factors, Parkinson Disease, and Parkinson Disease-Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2025-09-04

Among 13,875 individuals with nonmissing VRF and outcome data with up to 30 years of follow-up (25% Black, 54% female), 179 developed PD at a mean age of 73.4 years, 94 developed PDD at a mean age of 79.2 years, and 1,791 developed dementia without PD at a mean age of 79.7 years. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 13,875 Evidence: moderate

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

Prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias in rural India: the Indo-US study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 1998-10-01

In this population, the prevalence of AD and other dementias was low, increased with age, and was not associated with gender or literacy. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,126 Evidence: moderate

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

Bilingualism delays age at onset of dementia, independent of education and immigration status

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2013-11-06

This is the largest study so far documenting a delayed onset of dementia in bilingual patients and the first one to show it separately in different dementia subtypes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 648 Evidence: low

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

Ten-year incidence of dementia in a rural elderly US community population: the MoVIES Project

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2000-03-01

Incidence rates of all dementias and of AD increased with age; men and those with lesser education had higher rates of possible/incipient dementia (CDR = 0.5) in this community. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,298 Evidence: moderate

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

Age and education correction of Mini-Mental State Examination for English and Spanish-speaking elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 1996-03-01

Previous research has shown that the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMS) is biased as a measure of cognitive impairment in minority and low-education patients. 3 key findings →

Participants: 590 Evidence: low

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

Association of Body Mass Index in Late Life, and Change from Midlife to Late Life, With Incident Dementia in the ARIC Study Participants

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2025-04-11

A total of 5,129 participants were included in the study (59% female; 22% identified as Black; mean (standard deviation) age at visit 5 of 75 (5) years). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,026 Evidence: low

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

Risk factors for Alzheimer's disease and dementia: a case-control study based on the MRC elderly hypertension trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 1994-01-01

We surveyed 1,545 subjects--recruited into the UK Medical Research Council elderly hypertension treatment trial between 1982 and 1987--to detect incident cases of dementia, identifying 50 cases of dementia, including 31 cases of probable or possible Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,545 Evidence: low

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

Prevalence of clinically diagnosed Alzheimer's disease and other dementing disorders: a door-to-door survey in Appignano, Macerata Province, Italy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 1990-04-01

The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of dementia in an Italian population using a door-to-door 2-phase design. 2 key findings →

Participants: 778 Evidence: low

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

↑ 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