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 1–21 of 21 studies in Getting a diagnosis with an author at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 21 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 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

The mean (SD) age of the study population sample (N = 3496) was 76.4 (7.6) years, and 2095 participants (60%) were female. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,496 Evidence: moderate

The pathophysiological process of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is thought to begin many years before the diagnosis of AD dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegeneration characterized by the abnormal accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau protein within the brain. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Blood-based AD biomarker concentrations are associated with pathological and clinical diagnoses and can predict future development of clinical AD, providing evidence that they can be incorporated into multi-ethnic, community-based studies. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

APOE genotyping does not provide sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be used alone as a diagnostic test for Alzheimer's disease, but when used in combination with clinical criteria, it improves the specificity of the diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,188 Evidence: low

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

Mild cognitive impairment is common in nondemented Parkinson's disease (PD) patients and may be a harbinger of dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A critical evaluation of the Braak staging scheme for Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2008-11-01

Braak and colleagues have proposed that, within the central nervous system, Parkinson's disease (PD) begins as a synucleinopathy in nondopaminergic structures of the lower brainstem or in the olfactory bulb. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Recommendations for HCAP adaptation include phases of preparation (assembling local expert teams; resource planning), implementation (construct-centered adaptation guided by local experts), pre-testing (iterative, mixed-methods approach), and field preparation (creating documentation; interviewer training; planning for ongoing quality assurance). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

To balance high-quality measurement of cognitive domains and maintain the ability to perform meaningful cross-national comparisons, each HCAP should include a common set of at least three to four continuously distributed test items per domain that can link domains across studies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

is a heuristic that seeks to develop methodologies capable of identifying subtle behavior(s) that may flag emerging AD and other dementia related syndromes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

BackgroundAccurate classification of cognitive impairment in population studies is challenging. 3 key findings →

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 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