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 144 studies in Disparities published 2025 (page 1 of 6) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 144 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.

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

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

Mean age ± SD was 83.4 ± 9.1 years. Most were female (72.0%), white (92.3%), non-Hispanic (84.6%), and lived in nursing homes (76.9%). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 147 Evidence: high

Social exposome and brain health outcomes of dementia across Latin America

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nature Communications 2025-09-11

A multidimensional social exposome (MSE)-the combined lifespan measures of education, food insecurity, financial status, access to healthcare, childhood experiences, and more-may shape dementia risk and brain health over the lifespan, particularly in underserved regions like Latin America. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,211 Evidence: low

The majority of the assessed health care data did not show significant differences between urban and rural SHA inhabitants. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 133 Evidence: high

Per 1-m/s increase in ePWV was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 1.51(1.30-1.75) for dementia and 1.58(1.33-1.89) for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and with an MMSE score decline (adjusted β-coefficient = -0.36; 95% CI = -0.52 to -0.21). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,857 Evidence: moderate

Use of Feeding Tubes Among Hospitalized Older Adults With Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-02-20

Among 143 331 older adults with dementia (83 536 [58.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 83.8 [7.5] years), 1312 (0.9%) received a feeding tube in hospital and 142 019 (99.1%) did not. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The rising age of the global population has made Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) a critical public health problem, with significant health-related disparities observed between rural and urban areas. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This study presents findings from IDEA Café, for older adults aged 50 and older living with early dementia, dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease or cognitive impairment (ED/CI) with no informal caregiver or care partner. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high

. Longitudinally, older age (OR=1.14 [1.06-1.22], p<.001), higher levels of p-tau217 (OR=10.37 [3.00-35.02], p<.001) and higher neuropsychiatric symptoms (OR=1.19 [1.02-1.39], p=.023) were associated with higher odds of progression to dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate

Of 9,361 SPRINT participants (mean age 67.1 ± 9.5 years, 36.7% female, 58.7% non-Hispanic White), 710 and 1,289 were new users of an ARB or ACEI. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Individuals with dementia and their care partners often report dissatisfaction with the disclosure process due to insufficient information and support. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

There was a significantly higher risk of developing a dementia diagnosis in Hispanic/Latino and NHB participants than NHW participants and comparably increased dementia hazard ratios in the Hispanic/Latino, NHB, and NHW APOE4 carriers than non-carriers (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval {CI}] 1.54 [1.25-1.91], 1.25 [1.00-1.57], and 1.55 [1.40-1.72]). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,784 Evidence: moderate

Wealth Disparities in End-of-Life Symptom Burden Among Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-03-06

Of 8976 decedents (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 4927 women [55.1%] women) in the cohort, 2197 (22.5%) were included in the low wealth category, 4534 (50.5%) in the medium wealth category, and 2245 (27.1%) in the high wealth category. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This diverse sample of Indigenous (1.65%), Black (11.43%), Hispanic (9.85%), and White (77.07%) older adults had a mean age of 61 (SD = 9.66) and was 52% female. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27,327 Evidence: moderate

Minoritized individuals had lower scores and/or greater likelihood of impairment on measures of lexical retrieval, processing speed, cognitive flexibility, and working memory but not global cognition, verbal recall, attention, and category fluency. 5 key findings →

Participants: 56 Evidence: low

Limited studies focusing on the intersectional determinants of preferences of ethnic minority groups or post-migrants with dementia were found. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The cultural tailoring of interventions is promising to address disparities in dementia care and interventions in underserved communities. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and neuroimaging markers of dementia risk: A pilot study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Pregnancy 2025-04-24

Midlife individuals who experienced HDP had lower regional CBF and reduced white matter microstructural integrity, compared with those with no adverse pregnancy outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 81 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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