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 176–200 of 815 studies in Getting a diagnosis (page 8 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.

Brief instruments to screen for cognitive impairment can adequately detect dementia, but there is no empirical evidence that screening improves decision making. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

During the 12-year follow-up period, 61 participants (7.8%) had a reported hypoglycemic event, and 148 (18.9%) developed dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 783 Evidence: moderate

< 0.001] total scores differed significantly between groups, with controls (median MoCA 28.5, 95% CI 28.0-29.0; median MMSE 30, 95% CI 30.0-30.0) outperforming prodromal (median MoCA 26, 95% CI 23.0-27.0; median MMSE 29, 95% CI 27.5-29.5) and symptomatic (median MoCA 20.5, 95% CI 17.0-24.0; median MMSE 26, 95% CI 23.5-29.0) carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort 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

Criteria for the diagnosis of vascular dementia (VaD) that are reliable, valid, and readily applicable in a variety of settings are urgently needed for both clinical and research purposes. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The entorhinal cortex (EC) plays a crucial role as a gateway connecting the neocortex and the hippocampal formation. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Discriminating α-synuclein strains in Parkinson's disease and multiple system atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature 2020-02-05

Synucleinopathies are neurodegenerative diseases that are associated with the misfolding and aggregation of α-synuclein, including Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies and multiple system atrophy 1 . 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive decline and dementia in diabetes--systematic overview of prospective observational studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Diabetologia 2005-11-08

Compared to people without diabetes, people with diabetes have a greater rate of decline in cognitive function and a greater risk of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Evidence: low

There were 140,055 subjects in the 1998-1999 cohort and 146,328 in the 1999-2000 cohort, of which 55.5 percent and 59.7 percent, respectively, were immunized. 4 key findings →

Participants: 140,055 Evidence: moderate

Reduced exposure to environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk, tumour-suppressor genes on chromosome 21, or a slower rate of replication or higher likelihood of apoptosis in Down's syndrome cells, could be possible reasons for paucity of cancer in people with Down's syndrome. 4 key findings →

Participants: 17,897 Evidence: low

In our training set, people with Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, and dementia with Lewy bodies had lower CSF α-synuclein concentrations than patients with Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disorders. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Dementia in AIDS patients: incidence and risk factors. Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 1993-11-01

We determined incidence and future projections of dementia after AIDS onset in 492 homosexual men with AIDS in the Baltimore/Los Angeles sites of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, 64 of whom developed dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Depressive symptoms in midlife or in late life are associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study 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