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 1–25 of 244 studies in Getting a diagnosis scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 1 of 10) · 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.

Pathological verification of ischemic score in differentiation of dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1980-05-01

Fourteen case histories of persons who had a histological diagnosis of either senile dementia of the Alzheimer type, multiinfarct dementia, or a mixed dementia composed of these two types and who showed evidence of a moderate to severe dementia on psychological testing were rated for the presence of thirteen clinical features comprising Hachinski's Ischemic Score. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study examined the validity of the four standard psychological paradigms that have been operationally defined within the CogState brief computerized cognitive assessment battery. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A chart-based instrument for delirium, which should be useful for patient safety and quality-improvement programs in older persons, was validated. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The brains of 232 patients with a case-note diagnosis of schizophrenia or affective disorder who died in one mental hospital over a period of 22 years were weighed, and were assessed in a coronal section at the level of the interventricular foramina. 3 key findings →

Participants: 232 Evidence: low

In order to observe changes owing to aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the volumes of subdivisions of the hippocampus and the number of neurons of the hippocampal formation, 18 normal brains from subjects who died of nonneurological causes and had no history of long-term illness or dementia (ten of these brains comprised the aged control group) and 13 AD brains were analyzed. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The analysis of 14-3-3 protein in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was shown to be highly sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). 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

The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence and pattern of neuropsychological impairment in cohorts of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals across pre- and post-HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy) eras. 3 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

Although it has been suggested that variations in mean EEG frequency are greater in the former, the existence of meaningful differences remains controversial. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This study utilized an initial dataset of 188,700 participant records from NACC. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16,309 Evidence: low

This comprehensive review examines the integration of Quantitative Electroencephalography (qEEG) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the detection and diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 890 Evidence: low

Of 394 participants, 35 % had preoperative CI on the MoCA, 15 % on the AD8, and 12 % on the Mini-Cog. 5 key findings →

Participants: 394 Evidence: low

CDR-SB and MoCA scores showed strong inverse correlation (Spearman's ρ = -0.68; p < 0.001). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 23,717 Evidence: moderate

NfL holds potential as a blood-based biomarker for symptomatic genetic FTD carriers, with moderate accuracy to distinguish PPD from mild forms including C9orf72 . 3 key findings →

Participants: 474 Evidence: low

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has been proved brief and sensitive to screen for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia in some developed countries or areas. 2 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 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