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 726–750 of 833 studies in Disparities (page 30 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.

Dementia is a growing challenge in Southeastern and Western Europe, with aging trends projected to accelerate in the former region. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

= 126). Subgroup analyses revealed stronger associations in LMICs than in high-income countries. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among women, the number of years spent living with dementia for Whites, Blacks, U.S.-born Hispanics, and foreign-born Hispanics was 1.6, 3.9, 4.7, and 6.0 years, respectively. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

It has remained a matter of debate until now whether amyloid and tangle pathology may be regarded as the main causes of the dementia in Alzheimer's disease (AD) or only as markers of the disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This article reports findings from three linked qualitative research projects that explored how Australian general practitioners (GPs) spoke about their experiences in diagnosing dementia and their views on early diagnosis and barriers towards early diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Most of the 5.4 million people affected by Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia (AD) are noninstitutionalized, receiving care by unpaid family caregivers and medically managed by a primary care provider (PCP). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The United States is becoming more ethnically diverse, and Asian and Pacific Islanders (APIs) are one of the most rapidly growing ethnic minority groups. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Future studies should consider culturally tailoring interventions for Hispanic/Latino caregivers from differing subcultures, utilizing relevant technology in studies, and evaluating the functional level of the care receiver and assess where he/she is in the disease process continuum. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A study of 365 women aged 70-79 in a rural community was carried out using the Cambridge Examination of Mental Disorders in the Elderly (CAMDEX). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) are neurodegenerative conditions that cause gradual deterioration of cognition, memory and language in the elderly. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

average annual dementia incidence in White, but not Black, adults (1% versus 0%), due to hypertensive individuals' greater survival, and reduce annual ASCVD events more in Black than White adults (13% versus 5%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In 2021, LOAD demonstrated a substantially higher global burden than EOAD: incidence cases (8,455,150 [95% UI: 5,818,063-11,461,560] vs. 1,381,906 [894,768-1,963,453]), mortality cases (1,879,291 [471,472-4,968,222] vs. 73,386 [14,059-232,170]), and DALYs (32,558,570 [14,907,368-71,154,572] vs. 3,774,117 [1,696,439-8,881,154]). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

This study predicts how sociodemographic trends-smaller family sizes, increased longevity, and marital patterns-could affect family care for people with dementia through 2060. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Spotlight on Alzheimer's disease and related dementias research in East Asia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-07-01

With a burgeoning dementia burden driven by unique demographic, genetic, and socioeconomic factors of East Asia, the region has made significant investments in understanding disease mechanisms, developing biomarkers, and exploring therapeutic approaches. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In 2017, the 10 leading causes of death were, in rank order: Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Cerebrovascular diseases; Alzheimer disease; Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Intentional self-harm (suicide). 1 key finding →

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