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 451–475 of 833 studies in Disparities (page 19 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.

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.

Despite the difference in diagnostic indication for tube-feeding, the substitute decision-making process was seriously limited at both sites by poor implementation of the principle of substituted judgement, a need for broader advance directives, and improved transfer of knowledge between clinicians and decision-makers. 1 key finding →

Participants: 46 Evidence: low

When compared to edentulous elderly patients, patients with remaining teeth were younger at admittance, were more often non-cooperative, and had a poorer oral health and higher need for dental care. 5 key findings →

Participants: 725 Evidence: low

Divorced marital status was significantly associated with an increased LOS following TKA. 5 key findings →

Participants: 234 Evidence: low

While educational disparities in dementia incidence are well-known, whether and to what extent they persist beyond dementia onset is less explored. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Rural-Urban Differences in Social Isolation and Dementia Risk Among Older Adults in India

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Older adults in rural India experience higher social isolation due to limited social and healthcare resources. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 71,513 Evidence: moderate

Mortality patterns in 2007, such as the decline in the age-adjusted death rate to a record historical low, were generally consistent with long-term trends. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,423,712 Evidence: low

In this study, the authors evaluated whether the association between low educational level and increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia may be explained by occupation-based socioeconomic status (SES). 5 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: moderate

Growing epidemiological evidence suggests that premorbid participation in cognitive leisure activities (CLA) reduces the risk of dementia by increasing cognitive reserve. 3 key findings →

Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate

This study aimed to explore racial/ethnic differences in the attitudes toward Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and dementia caregiving among midlife women who were family caregivers of persons living with AD (MWPLAD) in the U.S. and examine the associations of the attitudes to their health outcomes. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The Rush Memory and Aging Project: study design and baseline characteristics of the study cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2005-08-15

The long-term objective of the Rush Memory and Aging Project is to identify the postmortem indices linking genetic and environmental risk factors to the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

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

The results confirm that unilateral parkinsonism unresponsive to levodopa and limb ideomotor apraxia are the clinical hallmarks of corticobasal degeneration, and only a minority of patients with corticobasal degeneration present with dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This article outlines methodological enhancements to better evaluate treatment approaches in future registration trials and provides an algorithm for improving the treatment of these patients in nursing home and non-nursing home settings. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prevalence of dementia in three ethnic groups: the South Florida program on aging and health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Annals of epidemiology 2003-07-01

To determine the prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia in a multi-ethnic community, we examined a population sample of 2,759 elderly (65 years of age and older) African American, Hispanic-Cuban and white non-Hispanic men and women of Dade County, Florida. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Previous studies have indicated a prevalence of dementia in older admissions of ∼42% in a single London teaching hospital, and 21% in four Queensland hospitals. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Determinants of medical expenditures in the last 6 months of life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2011-02-01

It was hypothesized that race or ethnicity, social support, and functional status are independently associated with treatment intensity and controlling for regional characteristics, and that individual characteristics account for a substantial proportion of expenditure variation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

IL-6 levels were negatively associated with performance on the MMSE in this multiethnic cohort. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Research indicates that stress is linked to cognitive dysfunction. 2 key findings →

Participants: 467 Evidence: low

Ninety-seven men (incidence rate: 14.4/1,000) and 183 women (Incidence rate: 19.0/1,000) developed dementia during 8 years of follow-up. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

This suggests that for many antipsychotic drug users benefits may be marginal and that programs to reduce such drug use among the 250,000 US nursing home residents receiving these drugs should have high priority. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

These data suggest that older adults in rural communities may be underdiagnosed with ADRD, and/or diagnosed at later stages of dementia. 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