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 401–425 of 833 studies in Disparities (page 17 of 34) · 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.

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.

Linkage disequilibrium fine mapping and haplotype association analysis of the tau gene in progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of medical genetics 2005-03-25

The findings support the pathological evidence that underlying variations in MAPT could contribute to disease pathogenesis by subtle effects on gene expression and/or splicing. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Pathways explaining racial/ethnic disparities in incident all-cause dementia among middle-aged US adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2023-03-03

Compared with Non-Hispanic White (NHW) adults, Non-White adults had a higher incidence of AD-specific (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 3.49) and all-cause dementia (HR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.36, 2.98). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Association of genetic scores related to insulin resistance with neurological outcomes in ancestrally diverse cohorts from the Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Communications biology 2025-09-24

To better characterize the potential biological mechanisms underlying insulin resistance (IR) and dementia, we derive cross-population and population specific polygenic scores [PSs] for fasting insulin and IR-related partitioned PSs [pPSs]. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Reading level attenuates differences in neuropsychological test performance between African American and White elders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS 2002-03-01

The current study sought to determine if discrepancies in quality of education could explain differences in cognitive test scores between African American and White elders matched on years of education. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Prevalence of PD and other types of parkinsonism in three elderly populations of central Spain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society 2003-03-01

The prevalence of Parkinson's disease (PD) and other types of parkinsonism in three elderly populations of central Spain was investigated using a door-to-door, two-phase approach. 2 key findings →

Participants: 5,278 Evidence: low

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

Psychometric limitations of the mini-mental state examination among nondemented older adults: an evaluation of neurocognitive and magnetic resonance imaging correlates

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Experimental aging research 2013-01-01

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

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

Characterization of Mexican Americans with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2013-01-01

The purpose of the study was to provide characterization of Mexican Americans who meet criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →

Participants: 633 Evidence: low

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

Methods and demographic findings of the baseline survey of the NEDICES cohort: a door-to-door survey of neurological disorders in three communities from Central Spain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Public health 2004-09-01

Participation rates were good in both phases of the NEDICES baseline study, and this was influenced by age, sex and setting of the participants. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Stressful Life Events and Racial Disparities in Cognition Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2020-01-01

Greater lifetime stress predicted poorer later-life cognition, and, in a small sample of African Americans, faster declines in a key domain of episodic memory. 4 key findings →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

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

Dementia in the acute hospital: the prevalence and clinical outcomes of acutely unwell patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians 2016-08-02

A diagnosis of dementia confers an increased risk of either death or further admission within the following 12 months, highlighting the need for better cognitive screening in the acute setting, as well as targeted intervention such as comprehensive geriatric assessment. 3 key findings →

Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate

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

Cognitive impairment and outcomes in older adult survivors of acute myocardial infarction: findings from the translational research investigating underlying disparities in acute myocardial infarction patients' health status registry

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. American heart journal 2011-11-01

Most older patients surviving AMI have measurable CIND. 2 key findings →

Participants: 772 Evidence: low

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

The Clock Drawing Test: utility for dementia detection in multiethnic elders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 1999-11-01

Overall, the CDT may be as effective as the MMSE or CASI as a first-level dementia screen for clinical use in multiethnic, multilingual samples of older adults. 3 key findings →

Participants: 295 Evidence: low

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

Effectiveness of Cognitive/Behavioral Small Group Intervention for Reduction of Depression and Stress in Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic/Latino Women Dementia Family Caregivers: Outcomes and Mediators of Change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of rational-emotive and cognitive-behavior therapy : RET 2008-12-01

This study enrolled 184 middle-aged and older women (95 Non-Hispanic White and 89 Hispanic/Latino) who provided in-home hands-on care to an elderly relative with Alzheimer's disease or another form of dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 184 Evidence: low

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

Early life development in a multiethnic sample and the relation to late life cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences 2014-01-03

These findings demonstrate that early life experiences influence the trajectory of cognitive aging. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Sensitivity and specificity of cognitive and functional screening instruments for dementia: the Indo-U.S. Dementia Epidemiology Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2002-03-01

There is a shortage of adequate screening instruments for dementia in poorly educated populations and non-English-speaking groups. 1 key finding →

Participants: 5,126 Evidence: low

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

Measuring primary care patients' attitudes about dementia screening

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2008-08-01

The PRISM-PC questionnaire captures primary care patients' acceptance, perceived harms, and perceived benefits of dementia screening. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 315 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