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 226–250 of 522 studies in How common it is (page 10 of 21) · 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 “How common it is” covers

How common it is — Counting patterns across whole populations: who gets dementia, at what age, and how that is changing.

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.

Prevalence of mental disorders in China: a cross-sectional epidemiological study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The lancet. Psychiatry 2019-02-18

Anxiety disorders were the most common class of disorders both in the 12 months before the interview (weighted prevalence 5·0%, 4·2-5·8) and in lifetime (7·6%, 6·3-8·8). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Optimal ranges of CDR-SOB scores corresponding to the global CDR scores were 0.5 to 4.0 for a global score of 0.5, 4.5 to 9.0 for a global score of 1.0, 9.5 to 15.5 for a global score of 2.0, and 16.0 to 18.0 for a global score of 3.0. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,577 Evidence: moderate

The Lewy body variant of Alzheimer's disease: a clinical and pathologic entity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 1990-01-01

Thirty-six clinically diagnosed and pathologically confirmed Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients included 13 with cortical and subcortical Lewy bodies (LBs). 2 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

Estrogen deficiency and risk of Alzheimer's disease in women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. American journal of epidemiology 1994-08-01

The authors explored the possibility that estrogen loss associated with menopause may contribute to the development of Alzheimer's disease by using a case-control study nested within a prospective cohort study. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Parkinson's disease is a common neurodegenerative disorder primarily characterized by rigidity, tremor and bradykinesia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26 Evidence: low

Research on the relation between diabetes mellitus and dementia has produced conflicting results, and the relation has not been investigated among Blacks and Hispanics. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The neuroimaging profile of the C9ORF72 expansion was significantly more symmetrical than progranulin mutations with significantly less temporal lobe involvement than microtubule-associated protein tau mutations. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Prevalence of Epilepsy in Frontotemporal Dementia and Timing of Dementia Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-06-02

The study cohort included 245 patients with FTD (121 female [49.4%], 124 male [50.6%]; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [8.7] years), 2416 matched HCs (1190 female [49.3%], 1226 male [50.7%]; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [8.5] years), and 1326 patients with AD (777 female [58.6%], 549 male [41.4%]; mean [SD] age, 71.7 [9.8] years). 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 245 Evidence: moderate

Over 7,430,253 person-years of follow-up, 11,345 dementia cases occurred (10,863 AD and 2,159 VaD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 296,001 Evidence: moderate

In this observational study, zinc deficiency was associated with increased 1-year mortality and infection-related complications in patients with dementia, with evidence of a dose–response relationship. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,241 Evidence: moderate

In both the mortality and readmission cohorts we found significant associations with each pollutant. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 118 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular death in rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Arthritis and rheumatism 2005-03-01

These results indicate that markers of systemic inflammation confer a statistically significant additional risk for cardiovascular death among patients with RA, even after controlling for traditional cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. 3 key findings →

Participants: 354 Evidence: moderate

2009 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2009-05-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the sixth leading cause of all deaths in the United States, and the fifth leading cause of death in Americans aged 65 and older. 1 key finding →

Participants: 200,000 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 27,380 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