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 1–25 of 45 studies in Getting a diagnosis (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 45 studies tagged classification — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 49,227 Evidence: high

Positron emission tomography in evaluation of dementia: Regional brain metabolism and long-term outcome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2001-11-01

Progressive dementia was detected by PET with a sensitivity of 93% (191/206) and a specificity of 76% (59/78). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 146 Evidence: moderate

In secondary analyses, the area under the curve (AUC) of [18F]flortaucipir SUVR was compared with 3 established magnetic resonance imaging measures (hippocampal volumes and AD signature and whole-brain cortical thickness), and sensitivity and specificity of [18F]flortaucipir in MCI due to AD vs non-AD neurodegenerative disorders were determined. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 719 Evidence: low

81 participants with probable Alzheimer's disease and 69 healthy controls were assessed. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 81 Evidence: high

This study's findings suggest that PET imaging with [18F]flortaucipir could be used to identify the density and distribution of AD-type tau pathology and the presence of high levels of AD neuropathological change, supporting a neuropathological diagnosis of AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: moderate

Baseline MRI predictors of conversion from MCI to probable AD in the ADNI cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Current Alzheimer research 2009-08-01

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a multi-center study assessing neuroimaging in diagnosis and longitudinal monitoring. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 339 Evidence: moderate

Distinguishing Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) currently relies on a clinical history and examination, but positron emission tomography with [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) shows different patterns of hypometabolism in these disorders that might aid differential diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

For one of the primary analyses, the interpretation of the florbetapir scans (majority interpretation of five nuclear medicine physicians, who classified each scan as amyloid positive or amyloid negative) was compared with amyloid pathology (assessed according to the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease standards, and classed as amyloid positive for moderate or frequent plaques or amyloid negative for no or sparse plaques); correlation of the image analysis results with amyloid burden was tested as a coprimary endpoint. 3 key findings →

Participants: 59 Evidence: low

Metabolic reduction in the posterior cingulate cortex in very early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1997-07-01

This study investigated cerebral glucose metabolism in very early Alzheimer's disease, before a clinical diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease is possible, using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. 3 key findings →

Participants: 66 Evidence: low

Discrimination between Alzheimer dementia and controls by automated analysis of multicenter FDG PET

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. NeuroImage 2002-09-01

A new diagnostic indicator of FDG PET scan abnormality, based on age-adjusted t statistics and an automated voxel-based procedure, is presented and validated in a large data set comprising 110 normal controls and 395 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) that were studied in eight participating centers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 395 Evidence: low

Standardized automated analysis of (18)F-FDG PET scans may provide an objective and sensitive support to the clinical diagnosis in early dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 548 Evidence: low

Use of structural magnetic resonance imaging to predict who will get Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2000-04-01

We used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements to determine whether persons in the prodromal phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD) could be accurately identified before they developed clinically diagnosed dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Progressive CMRglc reductions on FDG-PET occur years in advance of clinical DAT symptoms in patients with pathologically verified disease. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Inverse relation between in vivo amyloid imaging load and cerebrospinal fluid Abeta42 in humans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2006-03-01

These observations suggest that brain amyloid deposition results in low CSF Abeta(42), and that amyloid imaging and CSF Abeta(42) may potentially serve as antecedent biomarkers of (preclinical) AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Antemortem MRI findings correlate with hippocampal neuropathology in typical aging and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2002-03-01

Individuals with an isolated pathologic diagnosis of AD, hippocampal sclerosis, frontotemporal degeneration, and neurofibrillary tangle--only degeneration usually had substantial hippocampal atrophy, while those with changes of typical aging did not. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: low

Medial temporal atrophy on MRI in normal aging and very mild Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 1997-09-01

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based volumetric measurements of medial temporal lobe (MTL) structures can discriminate between normal elderly control subjects and patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) of moderate to advanced severity. 1 key finding →

Participants: 94 Evidence: low

The demographics of aging suggest a great need for the early diagnosis of dementia and the development of preventive strategies. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

When compared with the other groups, AD patients demonstrated significantly higher SUVRs (P Conclusion (18)F-florbetaben had high sensitivity for AD, clearly distinguished patients with FTLD from AD, and provided results comparable to those reported with (11)C-Pittsburgh Compound B in a variety of neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →

Participants: 20 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. 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