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 476–500 of 511 studies in Getting a diagnosis · free to read (page 20 of 21) · 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.

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.

Sensitivity and specificity of the CANTAB Paired Associates Learning test for identifying mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Acta Psychologica 2026-08-07

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a stage between normal cognition and dementia, and timely diagnosis of this condition offers the opportunity for effective interventions to slow down the progression to dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

EEG microstate alterations in Parkinson’s disease dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2026-02-27

To investigate alterations in resting-state electroencephalogram (EEG) microstates across the cognitive spectrum of Parkinson's disease (PD) and to evaluate their utility as electrophysiological biomarkers of cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Multi-model deep learning for dementia detection: addressing data and model limitations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Frontiers in Neuroscience 2025-11-25

Among all evaluated models, the 3D-CNN and multimodal attention models achieved the highest performance, with accuracies of 84% and 86%, specificities of 83% and 86%, and sensitivities of 84% and 86%, respectively. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Investigating dementia patterns by machine learning and graph-based marker analysis for multiclass dementia diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Discover Computing 2026-05-18

Dementia is a debilitating disease that leads to a gradual loss of memory and other cognitive abilities and tends to develop in people over 60 years of age. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The diagnostic accuracy of CTseg segmentation software for dementia in a New Zealand memory service

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease Reports 2025-05-21

This study examines the accuracy of CTseg segmentation software to diagnose Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias using routine CT scans from a New Zealand memory service. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Digital Dementia: Smart Technologies, mHealth Applications and IoT Devices, for Dementia-Friendly Environments

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks 2025-11-24

The global increase in dementia cases, which is predicted to exceed 152 million by 2050, poses substantial challenges to healthcare systems and caregiving structures. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The Relationship Between Brainstem Structural Anatomical Parameters And Cognitive Function Impairment Based On The Indonesian Version Of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Score In Clinical Dementia Patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Eduvest - Journal Of Universal Studies 2025-08-13

Dementia is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by a significant decline in cognitive function. 4 key findings →

Participants: 65 Evidence: low

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

Characterizing risk and protective factors for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias in American Samoa

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. SSM - Mental Health 2025-04-18

• Understudied Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia. • Risk and resiliency factors in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia for American Samoa adults. • Using the Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment tool to determine ADRD potentially modifiable risk and protective factors. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

α‐Synuclein seed amplification assay in Lewy body dementia versus Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring 2025-10-01

The accuracy of α-synuclein-SAA for DLB was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77% to 98%) in CSF, 85% (95% CI: 75% to 98%) in skin, 58% (95% CI: 47% to 69%) in olfactory mucosa, and 59% (95% CI: 51% to 66%) in urine. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Scale: Strengths, Limitations, and Implication for Clinical Practice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry 2025-12-20

The MoCA shows superior sensitivity for MCI detection compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), with strengths in brevity, multidomain coverage, and accessibility. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

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

Virtual reality-based cognitive assessment tools for mild cognitive impairment screening: comparison with traditional paper-and-pencil-based cognitive assessment tools

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-23

VARABOM.D scores showed significant positive associations with established cognitive assessments. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

An Ultra-Brief Informant Questionnaire for Case Finding of Cognitive Impairment Across Diverse Literacy: Diagnostic Accuracy Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. JMIR Aging 2025-11-14

This ultra-brief questionnaire enables rapid screening for cognitive impairment (in <1 min) by family members or as part of community geriatric assessments. 2 key findings →

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