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 276–300 of 1,754 studies · tagged Diagnosis (page 12 of 71) · 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.

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.

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.

The trajectory of gait speed preceding mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-08-01

Longitudinal changes in motor function may be useful in the early detection of dementia during preclinical stages, when the utility of disease-modifying therapies would be greatest. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

The 'preclinical phase' of probable Alzheimer's disease. A 13-year prospective study of the Framingham cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1995-05-01

These findings support previous contentions that a "preclinical phase" of detectable cognitive deficits can precede the clinical diagnosis of probable AD by many years, and they also support the hypothesis that problems with secondary verbal memory are among the first signs of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,045 Evidence: moderate

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

MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal, MCI, and AD subjects: diagnostic discrimination and cognitive correlations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-01

We found no significant correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive scores in any of the 3 clinical groups individually. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 399 Evidence: low

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

Mini-Mental State exam scores vary with education in blacks and whites

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1991-02-01

Previous studies have suggested that education and race may affect performance on standardized mental status tests. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

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

The clinical significance of subjective memory complaints in the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2008-11-01

When assessed by simple questions, SMC appear to be present in the minority of those with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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

A brief cognitive test battery to differentiate Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2000-12-01

The ACE is a brief and reliable bedside instrument for early detection of dementia, and offers a simple objective index to differentiate AD and FTD in mildly demented patients. 2 key findings →

Participants: 115 Evidence: low

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

Rates and risk factors for dementia and Alzheimer's disease: results from EURODEM pooled analyses. EURODEM Incidence Research Group and Work Groups. European Studies of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 1999-01-01

Contrary to previous reports, head trauma was not a risk factor for AD, and smoking did not protect against AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

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

Cognitive dysfunction in older subjects with diabetes mellitus: impact on diabetes self-management and use of care services. All Wales Research into Elderly (AWARE) Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Diabetes research and clinical practice 2000-12-01

Routine screening of cognition in older subjects with diabetes is recommended. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 396 Evidence: moderate

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

Practice parameter: early detection of dementia: mild cognitive impairment (an evidence-based review) [RETIRED]. Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2001-05-01

There were insufficient data to make any recommendations regarding cognitive screening of asymptomatic individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Parkinson disease diagnosis and progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2011-03-11

There is a clear need to develop biomarkers for Parkinson disease (PD) diagnosis, differential diagnosis of Parkinsonian disorders, and monitoring disease progression. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

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

Development and assessment of a composite score for memory in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Brain imaging and behavior 2012-12-01

We sought to develop and evaluate a composite memory score from the neuropsychological battery used in the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Prevalence of cognitive impairment: results from the MRC trial of assessment and management of older people in the community

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Age and ageing 2005-05-01

The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is recommended to test for cognitive impairment and to monitor medication response. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 7,073 Evidence: high

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

Prevalence of Unrecognized Cognitive Impairment in Federally Qualified Health Centers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-10-22

A total of 844 eligible individuals were consecutively approached, 294 consented to participate, and 204 completed the study (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [5.1] years; 127 women [62.3%]). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 127 Evidence: low

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

Association between increased levels of amyloid-β oligomers in plasma and episodic memory loss in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2019-10-25

The elevated levels of OAβ in the plasma distinguished the AD and control groups and were associated with the severity of symptoms, especially memory performance, in patients with AD. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A scoping review of remote and unsupervised digital cognitive assessments in preclinical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. NPJ digital medicine 2025-05-10

Characterizing subtle cognitive changes in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) is difficult using traditional neuropsychological assessments. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Scalable plasma and digital cognitive markers for diagnosis and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2024-01-15

Combinations of plasma and digital cognitive markers show promise for scalable diagnosis and prognosis of ADRD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Rapid appraisal of barriers to the diagnosis and management of patients with dementia in primary care: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. BMC family practice 2010-07-01

Much can still be done in the way of service development and provision, GP training and education, and the eradication of stigma attached to dementia, to improve the early detection and management of dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Accuracy of a panel of 5 cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in the differential diagnosis of patients with dementia and/or parkinsonian disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2012-11-01

Ascertainment of the -synuclein level in CSF somewhat improves the differential diagnosis of AD vs DLB and PDD when combined with established AD biomarkers. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 453 Evidence: low

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

From across this tag

10 of the 1,743 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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