alzhub.org
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.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–18 of 18 studies in Getting a diagnosis · free to read · tagged Care Services · 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.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

What “Getting a diagnosis” covers

Getting a diagnosis — How Alzheimer's is identified, how accurate the tests are, and how early it can be caught.

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.

Association of incident dementia with hospitalizations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2012-01-01

Four hundred ninety-four individuals eventually developed dementia and 427 (86%) of these persons were admitted at least once; 2525 remained free of dementia and 1478 (59%) of those were admitted at least once. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,019 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association between acute care and critical illness hospitalization and cognitive function in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2010-02-01

During a mean (SD) follow-up of 6.1 (3.2) years, 1601 participants had no hospitalization, 1287 had 1 or more noncritical illness hospitalizations, and 41 had 1 or more critical illness hospitalizations. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,929 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Alzheimer's Association clinical practice guideline for the Diagnostic Evaluation, Testing, Counseling, and Disclosure of Suspected Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders (DETeCD-ADRD): Executive summary of recommendations for primary care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2024-12-23

US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Influenza vaccination and reduction in hospitalizations for cardiac disease and stroke among the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. The New England journal of medicine 2003-04-01

There were 140,055 subjects in the 1998-1999 cohort and 146,328 in the 1999-2000 cohort, of which 55.5 percent and 59.7 percent, respectively, were immunized. 4 key findings →

Participants: 140,055 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Alzheimer's Association recommendations for operationalizing the detection of cognitive impairment during the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit in a primary care setting

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2012-12-20

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act added a new Medicare benefit, the Annual Wellness Visit (AWV), effective January 1, 2011. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Pulling Back the Curtain on Hospital Dementia Detection: Validation of the Informant‐Based Clinical Dementia Rating

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2025-05-02

Of 65 participants (mean age = 79.4 years; women = 54%), 34% had dementia and 32% had CIND. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 65 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of five cross-cultural cognitive screening instruments for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in a multicultural memory clinic sample

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-06-22

BackgroundWith the changing demographic landscape in most countries worldwide, early identification of cognitive impairment in multicultural populations is increasingly relevant. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 187 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Feasibility and Acceptability of Implementing a Digital Cognitive Assessment for Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias in Primary Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. The Annals of Family Medicine 2025-04-29

There were 16,708 eligible encounters during the 12-month study period (June 2022-May 2023). 5 key findings →

Participants: 236 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: validity and utility in a memory clinic setting

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 2007-05-01

The MoCA is a useful brief screening tool for the detection of mild dementia or MCI in subjects scoring over 25 points on the MMSE. 1 key finding →

Participants: 32 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Feasibility of Telephone‐Based Cognitive Assessments and Healthcare Utilization in US Medicare‐Enrolled Older Adults Following Emergency Department Discharge

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2025-04-01

Twenty-six percent of eligible ED users contacted elected for study enrollment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 160 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

How does Australian primary care face dementia? Identifying current practice and barriers in dementia diagnosis and management in Australian primary care – a qualitative interview study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. BMC Family Practice 2026-03-21

Four themes described current primary care practitioner practices in dementia diagnosis and management (1) Family concern triggers dementia investigation (2) GPs delay conversations about dementia (3) Completing routine cognitive assessments in the 75+ health assessment, and (4) Variability in post-diagnostic care. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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.

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