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 1–15 of 15 studies in Getting a diagnosis published 2002 · 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.

Participation in cognitively stimulating activities and risk of incident Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA 2002-02-01

These results suggest that frequent participation in cognitively stimulating activities is associated with reduced risk of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 111 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

Discrimination between Alzheimer dementia and controls by automated analysis of multicenter FDG PET

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. NeuroImage 2002-09-01

A new diagnostic indicator of FDG PET scan abnormality, based on age-adjusted t statistics and an automated voxel-based procedure, is presented and validated in a large data set comprising 110 normal controls and 395 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) that were studied in eight participating centers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 395 Evidence: low

The overlap of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2002-10-01

Patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with no known diagnosis of ALS or family history of ALS were clinically and electrophysiologically assessed for the presence of ALS. 1 key finding →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

Recent findings suggest that a rich social network may decrease the risk of developing dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Antemortem MRI findings correlate with hippocampal neuropathology in typical aging and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2002-03-01

Individuals with an isolated pathologic diagnosis of AD, hippocampal sclerosis, frontotemporal degeneration, and neurofibrillary tangle--only degeneration usually had substantial hippocampal atrophy, while those with changes of typical aging did not. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: low

Six-item screener to identify cognitive impairment among potential subjects for clinical research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Medical care 2002-09-01

The six-item screener is a brief and reliable instrument for identifying subjects with cognitive impairment and its diagnostic properties are comparable to the full MMSE. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Visual hallucinations in Lewy body disease relate to Lewy bodies in the temporal lobe

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2002-02-01

Consensus opinion characterizes dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) as a progressive dementing illness, with significant fluctuations in cognition, visual hallucinations and/or parkinsonism. 4 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

A working group supported by the Office of Rare Diseases of the National Institutes of Health formulated neuropathologic criteria for corticobasal degeneration (CBD) that were subsequently validated by an independent group of neuropathologists. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Lipid peroxidation in aging brain and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Free radical biology & medicine 2002-09-01

Lipid peroxidation is one of the major outcomes of free radical-mediated injury that directly damages membranes and generates a number of secondary products, both from fission and endocyclization of oxygenated fatty acids that possess neurotoxic activity. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results of this study showed that the Turkish version of the SMMSE has high reliability and validity for the diagnosis of mild dementia in Turkish population. 2 key findings →

Participants: 212 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