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 76–100 of 124 studies in Getting a diagnosis of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 4 of 5) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 124 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.

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 2,641 participants had a mean (SD) age of 74 (2.8) years at baseline; 53 % were female, 36 % were of Black race, and had a range of baseline CKM: 3 % Stage 0 (no CKM), 4 % Stage 1 (excess/dysfunctional adiposity), 26 % Stage 2 (metabolic risk factors), 24 % Stage 3 (subclinical CVD and CKD), and 43 % Stage 4 (clinical CVD and CKD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,075 Evidence: moderate

Dementia in Severe Schizophrenia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA Psychiatry 2026-04-01

In this study's cohort of 155 individuals with SETRS (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [10.3] years; 56 female participants [36.1%]), 153 of 155 (98.7%) scored below the cutoff of 26 for mild cognitive impairment, and 73 of 155 (47.1%) scored below the cutoff of 10 for severe dementia (mean [SD] MoCA score, 9.8 [6.4]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 155 Evidence: moderate

Higher structural stiffness of the carotid artery is associated with cognitive decline, whereas both structural and load‐dependent stiffness are associated with brain structural abnormalities common in Alzheimer disease‐related dementias. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,489 Evidence: moderate

Among 298 participants (MCI, n = 56; NC, n = 242; mean age 75.1 years; 45.6% female), the groups were similar in age, sex, race, and APOE ε4 status at baseline, as well as in most driving behaviors. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 298 Evidence: early

The DRS-R-98, a 16-item clinician-rated scale with 13 severity items and 3 diagnostic items, was validated against the Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), and Delirium Rating Scale (DRS) among five diagnostic groups (N=68): delirium, dementia, depression, schizophrenia, and other. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate

Recent findings suggest that a rich social network may decrease the risk of developing dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Fit of the models to the data was adequate for general cognitive performance (root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.03; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94; standardised root mean residual (SRMR)=0.05), language (RMSEA=0.02; CFI=0.95; SRMR=0.05) and good for memory (RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02) and executive functioning (RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.98; SRMR=0.03). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,878 Evidence: moderate

We observed high levels of missing data in most cognitive test items - on average 13% and as high as 65%. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,755 Evidence: moderate

In total, 41 participants consented (n=10, 24% participants with Alzheimer disease; n=11, 27% participants with Lewy body disease; and n=20, 49% controls). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 41 Evidence: moderate

Inter-rater agreement for ID level classification was 95% within sites but 60% between sites. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 673 Evidence: moderate

Self- and informant-reported ADL and IADL impairments were examined at overall and item levels. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,050 Evidence: moderate

Feeling lonely rather than being alone is associated with an increased risk of clinical dementia in later life and can be considered a major risk factor that, independently of vascular disease, depression and other confounding factors, deserves clinical attention. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Approximately half (54.5%, 35/55) of participants showed a decline in RBMT scores during the 2-year follow-up and were defined as the memory decline group. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate

A multivariate analysis was also performed to predict specific risk factors associated with male and female EOAD and LOAD patients. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,212 Evidence: moderate

The rural setting presented unique challenges including: low literacy rates (60.1% of participants had no schooling), diverse language use (primarily Giriama and Swahili), limited infrastructure (e.g., 44.8% of households had electricity), restrictive cultural norms that influenced data collection (e.g., in-home interviews were often conducted outdoors with destructions). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate

SB-C significantly differentiated cognitively unimpaired and impaired groups (P < 0.001), correlated with standard cognitive measures, and showed moderate-to-high area under the curve (0.56-0.82) for classifying biomarker positivity, with strongest results in BioFINDER-Primary Care. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate

Undiagnosed dementia is common and associated with increased mortality, identifying a vulnerable population missed by current diagnostic pathways. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 13,142 Evidence: moderate

The relationship between sleep quality, neurofilament light chain (NFL), and cognitive impairment, including the potential effect of plasma NFL in this association, remains unclear. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 640 Evidence: moderate

This study found a reciprocal association between gait speed and global or domain-specific cognition. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 511 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 31,380 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