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 1–25 of 33 studies in Getting a diagnosis in Neurology · free to read (page 1 of 2) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 33 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.

Other 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.

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.

Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: Fourth consensus report of the DLB Consortium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2017-06-07

The Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) Consortium has refined its recommendations about the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB, updating the previous report, which has been in widespread use for the last decade. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

Validity of the MoCA and MMSE in the detection of MCI and dementia in Parkinson disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2009-11-01

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, but not the Mini-Mental State Examination, has adequate psychometric properties as a screening instrument for the detection of mild cognitive impairment or dementia in Parkinson disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 132 Evidence: low

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

HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders persist in the era of potent antiretroviral therapy: CHARTER Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2010-12-01

The most severe HAND diagnosis (HAD) was rare, but milder forms of impairment remained common, even among those receiving CART who had minimal comorbidities. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 843 Evidence: low

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

Diagnostic Performance of the α-Synuclein Seed Amplification Assay for Dementia With Lewy Bodies: A Comparison Across 4 Laboratories

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2026-01-28

This study highlights challenges for the reproducibility of α-syn SAA results across different protocols applied by different laboratories. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 30 Evidence: early

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

Prevalence of mild cognitive impairment is higher in men. The Mayo Clinic Study of Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2010-09-01

Among 1,969 subjects without dementia, 329 subjects had MCI, with a prevalence of 16.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4-17.5) for any MCI, 11.1% (95% CI 9.8-12.3) for amnestic MCI, and 4.9% (95% CI 4.0-5.8) for nonamnestic MCI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,969 Evidence: low

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

Quantifying the risk of neurodegenerative disease in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2008-12-24

Although we have found a slightly lower risk than other reports, the risk of developing neurodegenerative disease in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder is substantial, with the majority of patients developing Parkinson disease and Lewy body dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 113 Evidence: low

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

Altered lysosomal proteins in neural-derived plasma exosomes in preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2015-06-10

Levels of autolysosomal proteins in neurally derived blood exosomes distinguish patients with AD from case controls and appear to reflect the pathology of AD up to 10 years before clinical onset. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26 Evidence: low

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

Higher risk of progression to dementia in mild cognitive impairment cases who revert to normal

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2013-12-18

Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 153 of 534 participants (28.7%) with prevalent or incident MCI progressed to dementia (71.3 per 1,000 person-years). 2 key findings →

Participants: 534 Evidence: moderate

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

Montreal Cognitive Assessment vs the Mini-Mental State Examination as a Screening Tool for Patients With Genetic Frontotemporal Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2025-02-14

< 0.001] total scores differed significantly between groups, with controls (median MoCA 28.5, 95% CI 28.0-29.0; median MMSE 30, 95% CI 30.0-30.0) outperforming prodromal (median MoCA 26, 95% CI 23.0-27.0; median MMSE 29, 95% CI 27.5-29.5) and symptomatic (median MoCA 20.5, 95% CI 17.0-24.0; median MMSE 26, 95% CI 23.5-29.0) carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort 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.

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 31,380 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