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

31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 351–375 of 911 studies · free to read · tagged Diagnosis (page 15 of 37) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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.

Subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,851 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Speech Analysis by Natural Language Processing Techniques: A Possible Tool for Very Early Detection of Cognitive Decline?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2018-11-13

Neuropsychological tests showed significant differences between controls and mdMCI, and between controls and eD participants; GPCog, MoCA, PF, and SF also discriminated between controls and aMCI. 5 key findings →

Participants: 96 Evidence: low

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

Impact of molecular imaging on the diagnostic process in a memory clinic

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2012-11-16

[(11)C]PIB scans were positive in 40 of 66 (61%) patients with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), 5 of 18 (28%) patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), 4 of 5 (80%) patients with Lewy body dementia, and 3 of 10 (30%) patients with other dementias. [(18)F]FDG uptake patterns matched the clinical diagnosis in 38 of 66 (58%) of AD patients, and in 6 of 18 (33%) FTD patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: low

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

Stepwise approach to alzheimer's disease diagnosis in primary care using cognitive screening, risk factors, neuroimaging and plasma biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Scientific reports 2025-08-27

Early identification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology is essential for timely intervention, particularly in primary care. 4 key findings →

Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate

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

Mini Mental State Examination and Logical Memory scores for entry into Alzheimer's disease trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2016-02-22

Specific cutoff scores on the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Logical Memory (LM) test are used to determine inclusion in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials and diagnostic studies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 23,438 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

Interpreter Communication Quality in Cognitive Assessments for Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-02-12

At baseline, there were 126 participants (106 [84.1%] women); mean (SD) age was 44.13 (12.71) years, mean years of interpreting experience was 8.57 (8.48) years, and 106 of 120 (88.3%) lived in an urban area. 5 key findings →

Participants: 126 Evidence: high

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

Revisiting the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in a European cohort of elderly living with type 2 diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-03-01

BackgroundIndividuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of developing both vascular and Alzheimer's dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 128 Evidence: moderate

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

Development and validation of machine learning models with blood-based digital biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis: a multicohort diagnostic study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. EClinicalMedicine 2025-03-01

Random forest classifier and feature selection procedures were used to select digital biomarkers. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,324 Evidence: low

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

Advancing Alzheimer’s disease risk prediction: development and validation of a machine learning-based preclinical screening model in a cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-02-01

11 variables were critical in the training phase, including educational level, depression, insomnia, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), medication count, gender, stenting, systolic blood pressure (sbp), neurosis and rapid eye movement. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,379 Evidence: low

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

Cognitive and Psychosocial Effects of Individual Cognitive Stimulation in Dementia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health 2025-09-09

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a year-long, home-based individual cognitive stimulation (iCS) program on cognitive performance, mood, functional independence, and quality of life (QoL) in older adults with mild Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 18 Evidence: high

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

Cerebral small vessel disease burden relates to cognitive decline via impaired amyloid clearance in the general population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism 2026-04-10

Our aim is to examine the interplay between cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) pathology, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) related amyloid-β (Aβ) clearance, and cognition in general population. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,026 Evidence: moderate

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

Analysis of Psychological Symptoms Following Disclosure of Amyloid-Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Results to Adults With Subjective Cognitive Decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA network open 2023-01-03

After disclosure, 27 patients with amyloid-positive SCD+ (median [IQR] age, 70 [66-74] years; gender: 14 men [52%]; median [IQR] education: 15 [13 to 17] years, median [IQR] Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score, 29 [28 to 30]) had higher median (IQR) IES-R total score (10 [2 to 14] vs 0 [0 to 2]; P Conclusions and relevance The disclosure of a positive amyloid-PET result to patients with SCD+ was associated with a bigger psychological change, yet such change did not reach the threshold for clinical concern. 5 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: low

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

MoCA, ACE-R, and MMSE versus the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network Vascular Cognitive Impairment Harmonization Standards Neuropsychological Battery after TIA and stroke

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Stroke 2011-12-08

Among 91 nondemented subjects completing neuropsychological testing (mean/SD age, 73.4/11.6 years; 44% female; 56% stroke), 39 (42%) had MCI (amnestic multiple domain=10, nonamnestic multiple domain=9, nonamnestic single domain=19, amnestic single domain=1). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

The Clinician Assessment of Fluctuation and the One Day Fluctuation Assessment Scale. Two methods to assess fluctuating confusion in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 2000-09-01

Both scales are useful instruments for the clinical assessment of fluctuation in dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

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

Natural history of progressive supranuclear palsy (Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome) and clinical predictors of survival: a clinicopathological study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 1996-06-01

Onset of falls during the first year are emphasised, as they could lead to an early diagnosis and influence the prognosis of patients with PSP. 2 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

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

Multiplexed immunoassay panel identifies novel CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis and prognosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. PloS one 2011-04-19

Using a targeted proteomic screen, we identified novel candidate biomarkers that complement the best current CSF biomarkers for distinguishing very mildly/mildly demented from cognitively normal individuals. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The Role of Movement Analysis in Diagnosing and Monitoring Neurodegenerative Conditions: Insights from Gait and Postural Control

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Brain sciences 2019-02-06

Quantifying gait and postural control adds valuable information that aids in understanding neurological conditions where motor symptoms predominate and cause considerable functional impairment. 1 key finding →

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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events