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 1–24 of 24 studies in Disparities published 2018 · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 24 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 diagnosis recording in general hospitals is increasing but remains less likely in some groups. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 21,387 Evidence: moderate

Trends in dementia diagnosis rates in UK ethnic groups: analysis of UK primary care data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Clinical epidemiology 2018-08-08

People from the black ethnic group had a higher incidence of dementia diagnosis and those from the Asian ethnic group had lower incidence compared with the white ethnic group. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,511,681 Evidence: moderate

We found no evidence to support the theory that natural variation in cumulative exposure to endogenous oestrogens across the reproductive period influences dementia incidence in late life. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Future well-designed longitudinal researches examining the direct and indirect relationship between tooth loss and dementia risk are encouraged. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Telemental health (TMH) for older patients has the potential to increase access to geriatric specialists, reduce travel times for patients and providers, and reduce ever growing healthcare costs. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Our findings suggest cutoffs may need to be stratified by race/ethnicity and education to ensure detecting MCI from normal and MCI from dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,895 Evidence: low

Late-life lower BMI relates to faster rates of decline in cognition, specifically semantic memory and episodic memory, in both blacks and whites. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,134 Evidence: moderate

Older patients on hemodialysis are at substantial risk of diagnosis with dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and carrying these diagnoses is associated with a twofold higher mortality. 4 key findings →

Participants: 356,668 Evidence: low

This analysis combining data from two health systems shows that area deprivation is an independent risk factor for cognitive dysfunction in older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,186 Evidence: moderate

Technology-based interventions have the potential to support informal caregivers of PWD. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

AF is associated with greater cognitive decline and increased risk of dementia, independent of ischemic stroke. 5 key findings →

Participants: 515 Evidence: low

Neurons selectively targeted in frontotemporal dementia reveal early stage TDP-43 pathobiology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2018-12-03

TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) aggregation is the most common pathological hallmark in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and characterizes nearly all patients with motor neuron disease (MND). 3 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

Immigrant status may have complex effects on dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 7,609 Evidence: low

As indicated by Cox regression modeling, dementia risk of low-educated individuals was not significantly different between ethnic groups but was related to having an APOE e4 allele (hazard ratio [HR] 1.89), depression (HR 1.67), stroke (HR 1.60), and smoking (HR 1.32). 3 key findings →

Participants: 819 Evidence: low

In 2016, the UC Davis Latino Aging Research Resource Center and UC Davis Alzheimer's Disease Center brought together experts from across the country to consolidate current knowledge and identify future directions in aging and diversity research. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Early identification of younger, non-demented adults at elevated risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is crucial because the pathological process begins decades before dementia onset. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRDs) are a global crisis facing the aging population and society as a whole. 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