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 151–175 of 815 studies in Getting a diagnosis (page 7 of 33) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Eight candidate predictors entered the prediction model: bulbar versus non-bulbar onset (univariable hazard ratio [HR] 1·71, 95% CI 1·63-1·79), age at onset (1·03, 1·03-1·03), definite versus probable or possible ALS (1·47, 1·39-1·55), diagnostic delay (0·52, 0·51-0·53), forced vital capacity (HR 0·99, 0·99-0·99), progression rate (6·33, 5·92-6·76), frontotemporal dementia (1·34, 1·20-1·50), and presence of a C9orf72 repeat expansion (1·45, 1·31-1·61), all p Interpretation We have developed an externally validated model to predict survival without tracheostomy and non-invasive ventilation for more than 23 h per day in European patients with ALS. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,936 Evidence: moderate

Neurodegenerative disorder risk in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder: study in 174 patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. PloS one 2014-02-26

In a large IRBD cohort diagnosed in a tertiary referal sleep center, prolonged follow-up indicated that the majority of patients are eventually diagnosed with the synucleinopathies PD, DLB and less frequently MSA. 3 key findings →

Participants: 174 Evidence: moderate

When compared to post-mortem amyloid burden, low proposed thresholds were more sensitive than high thresholds (sensitivities: distribution volume ratiolow 81.0%, standard uptake value ratiolow 83.3%; distribution volume ratiohigh 61.9%, standard uptake value ratiohigh 62.5%) for CERAD moderate-to-frequent neuritic plaques, with similar specificity (distribution volume ratiolow 95.8%; standard uptake value ratiolow, distribution volume ratiohigh and standard uptake value ratiohigh 100.0%). 2 key findings →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

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

TDP-43 stage, mixed pathologies, and clinical Alzheimer's-type dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2016-11-01

We tested the hypotheses that TDP-43 with Alzheimer's disease pathology is a common mixed pathology; is related to increased likelihood of expressing clinical Alzheimer's-type dementia; and that TDP-43 pathologic stage is an important determinant of clinical Alzheimer's-type dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 398 Evidence: moderate

Obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 ) at age 50 years (hazard ratio = 1.93; 1.35-2.75) but not at 60 or 70 years was associated with risk of dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 10,308 Evidence: low

A total of 3828 titles and abstracts and 434 full-text articles were reviewed, yielding 12 articles meeting eligibility criteria. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 694 Evidence: high

Prevalence of dementia in the United States: the aging, demographics, and memory study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2007-10-29

Dementia prevalence estimates from this first nationally representative population-based study of dementia in the USA to include subjects from all regions of the country can provide essential information for effective planning for the impending healthcare needs of the large and increasing number of individuals at risk for dementia as our population ages. 1 key finding →

Participants: 856 Evidence: low

Recently, several animal studies indicated that the 'gut-brain' axis might contribute to the amyloid deposition of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 97 Evidence: low

Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies are currently defined by their clinical features, with α-synuclein pathology as the gold standard to establish the definitive diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Quantifying the risk of neurodegenerative disease in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2008-12-24

Although we have found a slightly lower risk than other reports, the risk of developing neurodegenerative disease in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder is substantial, with the majority of patients developing Parkinson disease and Lewy body dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 113 Evidence: low

Altered lysosomal proteins in neural-derived plasma exosomes in preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2015-06-10

Levels of autolysosomal proteins in neurally derived blood exosomes distinguish patients with AD from case controls and appear to reflect the pathology of AD up to 10 years before clinical onset. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26 Evidence: low

Higher risk of progression to dementia in mild cognitive impairment cases who revert to normal

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2013-12-18

Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 153 of 534 participants (28.7%) with prevalent or incident MCI progressed to dementia (71.3 per 1,000 person-years). 2 key findings →

Participants: 534 Evidence: moderate

In the 852 subjects without dementia, depressed mood was more common in individuals with greater cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,070 Evidence: moderate

Levels of CSF Abeta42 decrease and levels of CSF tau increase in AD. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 74 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
  • 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