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 151–175 of 522 studies in How common it is (page 7 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.

Influence of leisure activity on the incidence of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2001-12-01

The data suggest that engagement in leisure activities may reduce the risk of incident dementia, possibly by providing a reserve that delays the onset of clinical manifestations of the disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,772 Evidence: moderate

Huntington's disease (HD) is a rare, neurodegenerative disorder characterized by chorea, behavioral manifestations, and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Brain reserve hypothesis in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2007-08-01

The concept of brain reserve refers to the ability to tolerate the age-related changes and the disease related pathology in the brain without developing clear clinical symptoms or signs. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Of 736 patients (245 [33%] female, mean age 68·0 years [SD 11·2], median admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 3 [IQR 1-5]), 557 (76%) were followed up until death or the end of the study, and 706 (96%) contributed to the PSD analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate

Physical Activity Over the Adult Life Course and Risk of Dementia in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-11-19

This study included 1526 early adult-life (mean [SD] age, 36.7 [4.7] years; 821 [53.8%] female), 1943 midlife (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [5.8] years; 1010 [52.0%] female), and 885 late-life (mean [SD] age, 71.0 [4.5] years; 473 [53.4%] female) participants. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,526 Evidence: moderate

A mutation in APP protects against Alzheimer's disease and age-related cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature 2012-08-01

The prevalence of dementia in the Western world in people over the age of 60 has been estimated to be greater than 5%, about two-thirds of which are due to Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Exome sequencing reveals VCP mutations as a cause of familial ALS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neuron 2010-12-01

Using exome sequencing, we identified a p.R191Q amino acid change in the valosin-containing protein (VCP) gene in an Italian family with autosomal dominantly inherited amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

The age-dependent relation of blood pressure to cognitive function and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2005-08-01

The relation of blood pressure with cognitive function and dementia has, in recent years, received much attention from epidemiological research. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

Tau and Aβ imaging, CSF measures, and cognition in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Science translational medicine 2016-05-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by two molecular pathologies: cerebral β-amyloidosis in the form of β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques and tauopathy in the form of neurofibrillary tangles, neuritic plaques, and neuropil threads. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Inflammatory proteins in plasma and the risk of dementia: the rotterdam study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2004-05-01

Plasma levels of inflammatory proteins are increased before clinical onset of dementia, Alzheimer disease, and vascular dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,713 Evidence: moderate

Although beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques are a primary diagnostic criterion for Alzheimer's disease, this pathology is commonly observed in the brains of non-demented older individuals. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 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