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 1–25 of 374 studies in Disparities scoring 50–69 out of 100 (page 1 of 15) · 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.

Trajectories of Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults and Risk of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA psychiatry 2016-05-01

The analytic cohort included 2488 black and white older adults with repeated depressive symptom assessments from baseline to year 5 who were free of dementia throughout that period. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,322 Evidence: moderate

Black decedents were less likely than White decedents to use hospice for 3 or more days (132 of 378 [34.9%] vs 385 of 834 [46.2%]; P Conclusions and relevance Despite the increase in the use of hospice care in recent decades, racial disparities in the use of hospice remain, especially for noncancer deaths. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,212 Evidence: moderate

Random-effects models revealed small but statistically significant effects with better psychological well-being in African American caregivers compared with white caregivers in both population-based (d = -0.22) and convenience sample studies (d = -0.21). 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 159 Evidence: high

MCI prevalence varied among Hispanic/Latino backgrounds, but not as widely as reported in the previous studies. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,377 Evidence: moderate

Early-life factors, including education level, leg length, history of childhood head trauma, family-related factors and learning ability, were associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive impairment in later life. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 46,727 Evidence: high

The cohort sample included 5058 beneficiaries with dementia (mean [SD] age, 85.5 [8.0] years; 3038 women [60.1%]; 809 [16.0%] non-Hispanic Black, 357 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 3892 non-Hispanic White respondents [76.9%]). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,058 Evidence: moderate

Antipsychotic initiation and use were common during hospitalization, most often for delirium, and individuals were frequently discharged on these medications. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 17,775 Evidence: moderate

The Prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment among Chinese People: A Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2021-03-23

The prevalence of MCI in China was 15.4%, which varied by demographics, lifestyles, morbidity, screening tools, and diagnostic criteria. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 123,766 Evidence: high

The global mortality of ADRD among adults aged ≥65 years increased by 115%, from 6.5 (95% UI 1.5-18) per 100,000 population in 1991 to 14 (95% UI 3.5-37) per 100,000 population in 2021, with an Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) of 1.10% (95%CI 0.45%-1.76%). 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The African American Dementia and Aging Project: an Oregon-based longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Frontiers in dementia 2024-11-18

AADAPt participants had risk factors for developing dementia in future, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, but also reported protective factors such as high social engagement. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 177 Evidence: moderate

In patients with sporadic ALS, we identified the repeat expansion in 236 (7·0%) of 3377 white individuals from the USA, Europe, and Australia, two (4·1%) of 49 black individuals from the USA, and six (8·3%) of 72 Hispanic individuals from the USA. 1 key finding →

Participants: 4,448 Evidence: low

The number of people with dementia from minority ethnic (ME) groups in western countries is projected to rise dramatically, and they may be less able to access dementia services. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,090 Evidence: high

We aimed to inform planning by assessing intrinsic capacity prevalence, by characterising the target group, and by validating the general approach-testing hypotheses that DIC was consistently associated with higher risks of incident dependence and death. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 17,031 Evidence: moderate

Association Between Blood Pressure and Later-Life Cognition Among Black and White Individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-07-01

Among 34 349 participants, 19 378 individuals who were free of stroke and dementia and had longitudinal BP, cognitive, and covariate data were included in the analysis. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 349 Evidence: moderate

Accumulating data suggest that cerebrovascular disease contributes to Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology and progression toward dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,722 Evidence: moderate

Association of Echocardiographic Measures of Left Atrial Function and Size With Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA 2022-03-01

In this exploratory analysis of a US community-based cohort, several echocardiographic measures of lower LA function were significantly associated with an increased risk of subsequent dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 4,096 Evidence: moderate

Head injury and 25-year risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2021-03-09

Head injury was associated with risk of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3-1.57), with evidence of dose-response (1 head injury: HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.13-1.39, 2+ head injuries: HR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.86-2.46). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 14,376 Evidence: moderate

Midlife Vascular Risk Factors, Parkinson Disease, and Parkinson Disease-Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2025-09-04

Among 13,875 individuals with nonmissing VRF and outcome data with up to 30 years of follow-up (25% Black, 54% female), 179 developed PD at a mean age of 73.4 years, 94 developed PDD at a mean age of 79.2 years, and 1,791 developed dementia without PD at a mean age of 79.7 years. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 13,875 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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