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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 451–475 of 815 studies in Getting a diagnosis (page 19 of 33) · 28,180 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; 13,658 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.

Positron emission tomography in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 1986-07-01

Twenty-one patients with a clinical diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer's type (DAT) and 29 healthy, age-matched controls were studied using positron emission tomography (PET) and [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose to measure regional cerebral glucose consumption in the resting state. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Are dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease dementia the same disease?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. BMC medicine 2018-03-06

Intravitam PET and postmortem studies have revealed a more pronounced cortical atrophy, elevated cortical and limbic Lewy body pathologies, higher Aβ and tau loads in cortex and striatum in DLB compared to PDD, and earlier cognitive defects in DLB. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Comparative accuracies of two common screening instruments for classification of Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2012-12-21

The findings support recent data indicating that the MoCA is superior to the MMSE as a global assessment tool, particularly in discerning earlier stages of cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Neuropathologic outcome of mild cognitive impairment following progression to clinical dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2006-05-01

The neuropathologic outcome of amnestic MCI following progression to dementia is heterogeneous, and it includes AD at a high frequency. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Changes to AIDS dementia complex in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. AIDS (London, England) 1999-07-01

A proportional increase in ADC compared with other ADIs and a marked increase in the median CD4 cell count at ADC diagnosis have occurred since the introduction of HAART in Australia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,049 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Validation of the new interpretive guidelines for the clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes score in the national Alzheimer's coordinating center database

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-06-01

These findings cross-validate the previously published CDR-SB interpretative guidelines for staging dementia severity and extend those findings to a large heterogeneous sample of patients with dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 462 Evidence: low

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

Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of five cross-cultural cognitive screening instruments for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in a multicultural memory clinic sample

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-06-22

BackgroundWith the changing demographic landscape in most countries worldwide, early identification of cognitive impairment in multicultural populations is increasingly relevant. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 187 Evidence: low

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

The role of blood-based biomarkers in Parkinsonian disorders, Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 2025-07-15

The complexity of neurodegenerative disorders necessitates an integrative approach that incorporates morphological, functional, and molecular biomarkers. 3 key findings →

Participants: 279 Evidence: moderate

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

Time-Dependent Risk of Dementia Following Epilepsy Diagnosis: A Nationwide Cohort Study in South Korea

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 2025-05-15

Dementia risk was significantly higher in patients with epilepsy compared with that of controls (IRR: 3.65; 95% CI: 3.14-4.24), especially within the first 2 years post-diagnosis (aHR: 5.42; 95% CI: 4.30-6.83), peaking between 8 and 10 years (aHR: 8.25; 95% CI: 3.15-21.5). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,740 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Clinical and neuropathological criteria for frontotemporal dementia. The Lund and Manchester Groups.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 1994-04-01

Clinical and neuropathological criteria forfrontotemporal dementia * Early loss of insight into the fact that the altered condition is due to a pathological change of own mental state. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Sydney Multicenter Study of Parkinson's disease: non-L-dopa-responsive problems dominate at 15 years

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society 2005-02-01

One-third of the 149 people recruited 15 to 18 years ago in the Sydney Multicenter Study of Parkinson's disease have survived. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Mild cognitive impairment in the elderly: predictors of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 1991-07-01

We conducted full diagnostic evaluations, including a comprehensive cognitive assessment battery, of a group of 32 elderly subjects with a clinically identified mild cognitive impairment and a group of 32 age-matched and education-matched normal subjects. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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