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

31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 26–50 of 54 studies with an author at Johns Hopkins University (US) · tagged Diagnosis (page 2 of 3) · 31,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 54 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.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 17,251 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.

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

Addressing the disparities in dementia risk, early detection and care in Latino populations: Highlights from the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2022-02-24

The Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Factors associated with medication adherence in older adults: The atherosclerosis risk in communities study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2023-08-02

We examined factors associated with self-reported medication nonadherence in well-characterized community-based cohort of older adults. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,164 Evidence: moderate

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

Limits of the 'Mini-Mental State' as a screening test for dementia and delirium among hospital patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Psychological medicine 1982-05-01

With a psychiatrist's standardized clinical diagnosis as the criterion, the 'Mini-Mental State' Examination (MMSE) was 87% sensitive and 82% specific in detecting dementia and delirium among hospital patients on a general medical ward. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

The measurement of cognition in large-scale cross-national surveys: lessons from the Health and Retirement Study International Network of Studies and the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series B 2025-10-16

These lessons emphasize the importance of ensuring tests are feasible across both high-income countries and LMICs, maintaining consistency within studies and over time, and designing comprehensive cognitive batteries for improved measurement precision of general and domain-specific phenotypes. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Psychometric limitations of the mini-mental state examination among nondemented older adults: an evaluation of neurocognitive and magnetic resonance imaging correlates

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Experimental aging research 2013-01-01

Overall, MMSE scores exhibited ceiling effects, poor test-retest reliability, limited sensitivity to subtle brain abnormalities, and a high rate of intrusion elsewhere in the neuropsychological battery. 5 key findings →

Participants: 99 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Rapid Biomarker Screening of Alzheimer's Disease by Interpretable Machine Learning and Graphene-Assisted Raman Spectroscopy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. ACS nano 2022-03-25

The study of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia, faces challenges in terms of understanding the cause, monitoring the pathogenesis, and developing early diagnoses and effective treatments. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

O4–04–02: Prevalence studies of dementia in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2013-07-01

Several reviews have summarized the prevalence of dementia in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Recommended best practices for construct-centered adaptation of the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series B 2025-10-24

Recommendations for HCAP adaptation include phases of preparation (assembling local expert teams; resource planning), implementation (construct-centered adaptation guided by local experts), pre-testing (iterative, mixed-methods approach), and field preparation (creating documentation; interviewer training; planning for ongoing quality assurance). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Neighborhood Disadvantage and Dementia Risk Among Older Patients With Kidney Failure: Differences by Race/Ethnicity and Urbanicity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Kidney Medicine 2026-07-20

Older patients with kidney failure residing in high-disadvantage neighborhoods, particularly Black patients and those in suburban, rural, or small-town areas, had a higher risk of ADRD compared with those in low-disadvantage neighborhoods. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Co-calibration of cognitive performance in the National Health and Aging Trends Study with the Health and Retirement Study's Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol: Implications for dementia classification

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. SSM - Population Health 2025-04-06

Study-specific algorithms yielded comparable dementia prevalence estimates: 10.8 % in NHATS and 11.1 % in HRS-HCAP. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,696 Evidence: low

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

Normative data for 8 neuropsychological tests in older blacks and whites from the atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2015-01-01

Accurate assessment of cognitive impairment requires comparison of cognitive performance in individuals to performance in a comparable healthy normative population. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

HIV Dementia Scale: a rapid screening test

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes and human retrovirology : official publication of the International Retrovirology Association 1995-03-01

HIV dementia has an annual incidence of 7% after AIDS development and eventually affects 20% of all HIV-infected persons. 4 key findings →

Participants: 34 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol: What makes an HCAP an HCAP? An adaptive architecture for measuring cognitive aging around the world

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series B 2025-10-18

To balance high-quality measurement of cognitive domains and maintain the ability to perform meaningful cross-national comparisons, each HCAP should include a common set of at least three to four continuously distributed test items per domain that can link domains across studies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Instruments for screening for depression and dementia in a long-term care facility

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1989-01-01

The high prevalence of mental disorders such as depression and dementia in institutionalized elderly patients warrants screening for psychiatric diagnosis in patients newly admitted to long-term care facilities. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

The Evaluation of Telehealth's Impact on Medicare Annual Wellness Visits and Dementia Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

The Evaluation of Telehealth's Impact on Medicare Annual Wellness Visits and Dementia Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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. 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,052 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