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 776–800 of 833 studies in Disparities (page 32 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.

Deaths: leading causes for 2002

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. PubMed 2005-03-07

In 2002, the 10 leading causes of death were (in rank order) Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Cerebrovascular diseases; Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; Alzheimer's disease; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Septicemia and accounted for about 79 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Deaths: leading causes for 2000

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. PubMed 2002-09-16

In 2000 the 10 leading causes of death were (in rank order) Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Cerebrovascular diseases; Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; Alzheimer's disease; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Septicemia and accounted for nearly 80 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Deaths: leading causes for 2001

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. PubMed 2003-11-07

In 2001, the 10 leading causes of death were (in rank order) Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Cerebrovascular diseases; Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; Alzheimer's disease; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Septicemia and accounted for nearly 80 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Change in Indices of Distress Among Latino and Anglo Female Caregivers of Elderly Relatives With Dementia: Site-Specific Results From the REACH National Collaborative Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2003-08-01

Overall, participants in the Coping With Caregiving condition reported a significant reduction in depressive symptoms, increased use of adaptive coping strategies, and a trend toward decreased use of negative coping strategies when compared with those in the Enhanced Support Group condition. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Prevalence and pattern of major neurological disorders in rural Kashmir (India) in 1986

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 1994-01-01

In 1986 in the Kuthar Valley in the Anantnag District of south Kashmir (northwestern India), we studied the population to ascertain the prevalence and pattern of various neurological diseases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A community-based participatory approach to delivering the Dealing with Dementia program to Black caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Frontiers in Public Health 2025-10-21

Following the pilot field test, a sustainability plan was co-developed with community facilitators to support continued implementation and ensure that resources spent on DWDAlter were not lost. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Improving Early Detection of Dementia: Extra Trees-Based Classification Model Using Inter-Relation-Based Features and K-Means Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Big Data and Cognitive Computing 2025-05-30

The early detection of dementia, a condition affecting both individuals and society, is essential for its effective management. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Systemic disadvantages facing UK ethnic elders within dementia healthcare

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. BJPsych Advances 2025-07-02

Reduced access to dementia healthcare services by elders from ethnic minority backgrounds is often a manifestation of underlying systemic disadvantages within dementia assessment and treatment services. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

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

Do Older Mexican Americans With Dementia Benefit From Living Closer to the Border? Evidence From the HEPESE

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 2025-01-10

Hispanic older adults face significant barriers to healthcare access, stemming from multiple factors: limited income, high medical costs, elevated rates of chronic disease and dementia, and greater reliance on public insurance programs, relative to other racial, ethnic, and age groups. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Effects of Medicare predictors in health disparities in the risk of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions 2025-04-01

Low income and vulnerability to arterial hypertension were the primary contributors to AD/ADRD disparities, with cerebrovascular diseases and depression as notable secondary predictors. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Development of a Rural and Remote Dementia Training Framework

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Australian Journal of Rural Health 2025-11-01

Synthesis of the results identified three overarching key principles and seven actionable practices for consideration when designing or delivering dementia education to the rural and remote health and aged care workforce. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

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

Global burden of Alzheimer disease and other dementias reveals escalating geographical disparities and metabolic risks: A comprehensive analysis of 1990–2021 data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Medicine 2025-11-28

Keeping current with the burden and risk factors of Alzheimer disease and other dementias (ADOD) from global to national levels is critical for healthcare planning, prevention strategies, and the allocation of resources. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Community Input for Addressing Dementia Health Disparities: Richmond Brain Health Initiative

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Progress in community health partnerships 2025-03-01

Based on the stakeholder responses from fifteen providers and twenty community members, there was strong consensus in the need for local brain health services. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

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

Building a Regional Community-Based Participatory Research Model for Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias for Rural Communities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2025-04-01

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) offers effective, flexible approaches well suited to conduct health research with underrepresented populations that can be tailored to unique social, cultural, and geographic contexts. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The deprivation cascade hypothesis of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Aging and Health Research 2025-01-01

• Brain health depends on certain environmental resources of which socioeconomically disadvantaged people in particular are deprived. • Resource deprivation may increase dementia risk due to reduced attainment for deprived populations. • Improving attainment across the lifetime for disadvantaged individuals should be a public health priority for dementia prevention. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Attitudes towards euthanasia among physicians, nurses and the general public in Finland

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Public health 2002-11-01

The object of this study was to investigate the attitudes of physicians, nurses and the general public to physician-assisted suicide (PAS), active voluntary euthanasia (AVE) and passive euthanasia (PE) in Finland. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Qualitative Evaluation of an Online Technology to Support Rural Caregivers of People with Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Geriatrics 2025-12-05

Key barriers included limited digital literacy, resistance to technology and privacy concerns, as well as competing organisational priorities, and inadequate technological infrastructure. 4 key findings →

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