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 876–900 of 911 studies · free to read · tagged Diagnosis (page 36 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.

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.

Alzheimer Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by amyloid-β deposition, tau pathology, synaptic dysfunction, neuronal injury and cerebral atrophy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Recent studies highlight the significance of plasma phosphorylated tau proteins, neurofilament light chain, and amyloid-beta ratios as reliable biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Wprowadzenie Obniżenie poziomu funkcjonowania poznawczego to częsty problem osób w wieku podeszłym, zwłaszcza kobiet, a jednym z czynników ryzyka jest brak aktywności fizycznej. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study aimed to assess the diagnostic contribution of Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) in neurodegenerative dementias presenting with language-predominant symptoms, with or without accompanying behavioral changes, and to evaluate the correspondence between PET-derived metabolic patterns and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Parameters such as clinical status, GCA scale, MTA scale, Fazekas scale, strategic infarction, Koedam score, stroke, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease do not have significant correlations with MoCA-INA scores. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder affecting millions globally, with early detection being critical for effective management. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

EARLY STAGES OF ALZHEIMERS DETECTION

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2025-11-20

The Early Stages of Alzheimer’s Detection project focuses on identifying signs of Alzheimer’s disease at the earliest possible stage using advanced machine learning and medical imaging techniques. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

EARLY STAGES OF ALZHEIMERS DETECTION

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2025-11-20

The Early Stages of Alzheimer’s Detection project focuses on identifying signs of Alzheimer’s disease at the earliest possible stage using advanced machine learning and medical imaging techniques. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

While this process allows machine learning models to make more precise and reliable diagnoses, systems developed on the basis of Dr. Roman Poznanski's DOT (Dynamic Optimization of Thought) theory offer a new method in the diagnosis of neurological diseases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

However, knowledge alone does not consistently predict screening behavior. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease involves interacting mechanisms that include amyloid-beta accumulation, abnormal tau phosphorylation and aggregation, cholinergic dysfunction, synaptic degeneration, neuronal loss, neuroinflammation, vascular pathology, and genetic susceptibility. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

This article tells us how modern biotechnology and AI are redefining Alzheimer’s disease through early detection, advanced biomarkers, and innovative treatments like lecanemab. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In neurodegenerative diseases, the diagnostic value of α-synuclein seed amplification assay (αSAA) in routine clinical practice and its relationship with cognitive performance and fluid biomarkers remains incompletely characterized. 4 key findings →

Participants: 398 Evidence: moderate

Application of Plasma Neuron-Derived Exosome-Based Multimodal Biomarkers in the Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-04-09

Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology begins 15–20 years before clinical symptoms, necessitating non - invasive biomarkers for early diagnosis. 4 key findings →

Participants: 120 Evidence: low

Exploring Natural Compounds for Alzheimer's Disease: Virtual Screening and Docking Study with KIBRA Protein

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Preprints.org 2024-02-05

Therapies targeting amyloid, such as monoclonal antibodies like Lecanemab, Aducanumab, and Donanemab, have garnered FDA approval but remain controversial due to limited clinical benefits and significant side effects against Alzheimer. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Korean version of mini mental status examination for dementia screening and its' short form

⚠ Retracted — do not rely on it alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Psychiatry investigation 2010-04-06

We developed a Korean version of Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) optimized for screening dementia (MMSE-DS) and its' short form (SMMSE-DS). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,555 Evidence: low

The integration of artificial intelligence in medical image classification has significantly advanced disease detection. 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

The Dementia Trials Accelerator (DTA): a UK dementia trials-ready cohort

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

The Dementia Trials Accelerator (DTA) is a UK-wide programme designed to improve the feasibility, efficiency, and inclusiveness of recruitment into clinical trials of dementia and related brain-health conditions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 10,000 Evidence: low

Early identification of cognitive impairment remains challenging in settings where comprehensive cognitive and clinical assessments are not available. 1 key finding →

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.

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