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 476–500 of 522 studies in How common it is (page 20 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.

By identifying aggregation-prone segments in proteins, AGGRESCAN http://bioinf.uab.es/aggrescan/ shall facilitate (i) the identification of possible therapeutic targets for anti-depositional strategies in conformational diseases and (ii) the anticipation of aggregation phenomena during storage or recombinant production of bioactive polypeptides or polypeptide sets. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

We found significant associations between ADRD risk and particulate matter <2.5 µm in diameter and nitrogen dioxide in women. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Early diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) with mild dementia is becoming increasingly important to enable patients to receive appropriate treatment with available amyloid-targeting therapies. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

The incidence of dementia declined by 26% percent (95% confidence interval: -26.2; -25.3), from 2020 per 100 000 insured individuals in 2015 to 1500 per 100 000 in 2022. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From 1990 to 2021, the incidence, prevalence, and DALYs of ADOD have significantly risen both globally and in China, with the growth rates in China notably surpassing the global average. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Compared to persons without IDD, cumulative incidence of dementia was on average 4.27 and 5.33 times higher in persons with Non-DS IDD and DS respectively and period prevalence of dementia was on average 4.87 and 5.93 times higher in persons with Non-DS IDD and DS respectively. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

A Precision Aging Approach to Cognitive Aging: Clustering Multiple Domains of Risk

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-21

The term Precision Aging describes an approach that focuses on multi-domain profiles of risks impacting individual trajectories of age-related cognitive functioning. 3 key findings →

Participants: 555 Evidence: moderate

GCH1 genetic variation as a prognostic factor in Parkinsons disease across populations

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-19

BackgroundPathogenic variants in GCH1 have been associated with Parkinsons disease (PD), but the clinical phenotype and longitudinal disease course of GCH1-associated PD remain incompletely characterized. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22,825 Evidence: moderate

Discordance Between Genetic Ancestry and Self-Reported Race Impacts Inference of Neuropsychiatric Burden in Alzheimer's Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-26

IntroductionNeuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS)--including aggression, psychosis, anxiety, apathy, and depression--affect up to 85% of individuals with Alzheimers disease (AD) and are among its most disabling and costly manifestations, accelerating cognitive and functional decline, institutionalization, mortality, and healthcare costs. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Multimodal Transformer Modeling of Rapamycin Treatment in Alzheimer's Disease via Random Forest Feature Filtering

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-26

Rapamycin, an FDA-approved inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway, has demonstrated promising anti-aging and neuroprotective effects. 4 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: moderate

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II variation is implicated in Alzheimers disease (AD) and longevity, but its mechanisms within the major histocompatibility complex remain unclear. 2 key findings →

Participants: 6,053 Evidence: moderate

Evaluating Clinical Foundation Models for Early Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia Prediction from Longitudinal EHRs

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-03

Early identification of Alzheimers disease and related dementias (ADRD) remains challenging despite its importance for timely intervention, management of modifiable risk factors, and care planning. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

BackgroundThe prevalence and pattern of secondary causes of first-onset psychosis (FEP) in Asian populations are understudied. 2 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: moderate

Smooth Curves, Similar Conclusions? Comparing Linear Regression and GAMLSS Neuropsychological Norms

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-04

ObjectiveRegression-based normative approaches are widely used in neuropsychology but often rely on score transformations to satisfy model assumptions. 1 key finding →

Participants: 131 Evidence: moderate

Sex Differences in the Associations between Education, Neuropathology, and Cognition

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-08

In female participants, higher education was associated with lower Thal amyloid phase, diffuse plaques, neuritic plaques, and Braak stage ({beta} range, -0.097 to -0.071; qFDR<.026); none was significant among male participants. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,592 Evidence: moderate

Population-Scale Integration of Spatial Omics Networks for Clinical Prediction and Biological Discovery by SPIN

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-09

Spatial omics enables the integration of high-dimensional molecular organization with clinical outcomes, yet incorporating spatial single-cell information into predictive models at the population scale remains challenging. 1 key finding →

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