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 33 studies in Disparities published 2020 (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 33 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.

Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials where the participants had PDD or PD-MCI, and where the intervention was intended to train general or specific areas of cognitive function, targeting either a single domain or multiple domains of cognition, and was compared to a control condition. 5 key findings →

Participants: 225 Evidence: high

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Knowledge About One's Dementia Status

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020-04-13

Among subjects identified as having dementia by the prediction model, 43.5% to 50.2%, depending on the survey year, reported that they were informed of the dementia status by their physician. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 8,686 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

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

In this cohort study, exposure to residential segregation throughout young adulthood was associated with worse processing speed among black participants as early as in midlife. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,115 Evidence: moderate

Study results suggest that, after diagnosis, rural Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD spend more time in nursing homes and less time in the community, receive less home health care, and have shorter survival than their urban counterparts. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 561 Evidence: moderate

At the beginning of June 2020, there were nearly 7 million reported cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide and over 400,000 deaths in people with COVID-19. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This systematic review commissioned by the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), considers how the evidence base for noise effects on health has changed following the recent reviews undertaken for the WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

This association may be partially mediated by air pollution, whereas noise exposure did not affect associations. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Cognitive impairment in the U.S.: Lifetime risk, age at onset, and years impaired

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. SSM - population health 2020-03-31

Prior studies have analyzed the burden of cognitive impairment, but often use potentially biased prevalence-based methods or measure only years lived with impairment, without estimating other relevant metrics. 3 key findings →

Participants: 29,304 Evidence: low

Relative to white caregivers, blacks more often provided in excess of 40 hr of care per week (54.3% vs 38.6%) and more often cared for an older adult with dementia (27.1% vs 20.7%) who was living below the federal poverty line (31.7% vs 11.9%) or was Medicaid-eligible (42.2% vs 11.8%). 1 key finding →

Participants: 992 Evidence: low

Across Latin American and Caribbean countries (LACs), the fight against dementia faces pressing challenges, such as heterogeneity, diversity, political instability, and socioeconomic disparities. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Withdrawal of Life-supporting Treatment in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA surgery 2020-08-01

Black patients (4806 [13.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.72; P Conclusions and relevance Withdrawal of LST is common in sTBI and socioeconomic factors are associated with the decision to withdraw LST. 5 key findings →

Participants: 37,931 Evidence: low

These results add to the body of evidence on the adverse impact of ambient air pollution on cognitive aging and brain health and provide new insights into the genetic and behavioral factors that may impact individual susceptibility. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,821 Evidence: low

Socioeconomic Status Mediates Racial Differences Seen Using the AT(N) Framework

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2020-11-07

Future studies should emphasize collection of relevant psychosocial factors in addition to the development of intentional diversity and inclusion efforts to improve the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic representativeness of AD studies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 131 Evidence: low

Baseline cognition was poorer in individuals born and residing in the South, particularly those attending desegregated schools at age 12. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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 27,780 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