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 326–350 of 833 studies in Disparities (page 14 of 34) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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.

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.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and neuroimaging markers of dementia risk: A pilot study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Pregnancy 2025-04-24

Midlife individuals who experienced HDP had lower regional CBF and reduced white matter microstructural integrity, compared with those with no adverse pregnancy outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 81 Evidence: moderate

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

NIH Conferences21 June 2005National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Management of Menopause-Related SymptomsFREENIH State-of-the-Science Panel*NIH State-of-the-Science Panel*Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_1-200506210-00117 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus and state-of-the-science statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of 1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session, 3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session, and 4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and the morning of the third. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

The Minority Aging Research Study (MARS) is a longitudinal, epidemiologic cohort study of decline in cognitive function and risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in older African Americans, with brain donation after death added as an optional component for those willing to consider organ donation. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

There is considerable variation in the phenotypic appearance of individuals with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD), which may translate into differences in disease progression in addition to underlying disease etiology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 162 Evidence: low

The prevalence of ICAS in older adults is high, and it could be a target for primary prevention of stroke and dementia in this population. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,765 Evidence: moderate

The two overarching themes lend themselves to interventions at a service level and a community level which need to happen in synergy. 1 key finding →

Participants: 25,000 Evidence: low

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

Reduced ED attendances in the first wave of the pandemic suggest opportunities for reducing low severity presentations to ED in the future, but also raise the possibility of harm from delayed or missed care. 4 key findings →

Participants: 243,667 Evidence: low

Health care aides frequently report care that is rushed and tasks omitted due to lack of time. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 583 Evidence: low

Baseline cognition was poorer in individuals born and residing in the South, particularly those attending desegregated schools at age 12. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Our findings suggest that poor chewing ability is associated with cognitive impairment or dementia in the elderly living in rural area. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 295 Evidence: low

For non-Indigenous peoples, the crude and age-standardised (World Health Organization standard) prevalence of dementia was 10.6 and 7.4 per 1000 persons, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate

Characterizing the olfaction and dementia association in the community‐based ARIC study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-02-01

Compared to good olfaction, moderate olfaction (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26 to 1.86), hyposmia (HR: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.81 to 2.78), and anosmia (HR: 3.47, 95% CI: 2.77 to 4.34) were all associated with higher dementia hazard; these associations were consistent across age, race, sex, and APOE ε4 groups. 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,470 Evidence: low

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

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

One-third of adults with neurological conditions in China have low health literacy, with pronounced socioeconomic and geographic disparities. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,120 Evidence: low

Lifespan exposures to rural–urban conditions and later‐life cognitive function

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-06-01

Linear and logistic regression showed that childhood rural residence was associated with lower memory (standardized beta (β) = -1.68, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-2.39, -0.97]), executive function (β = -1.20, 95% CI [-1.84, -0.55]), and language fluency (β = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.64, -0.08]). 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,073 Evidence: low

CAG trinucleotide expansion is the molecular basis of Huntington's disease worldwide and is a highly sensitive and specific marker for inheritance of the disease mutation. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,007 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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