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 1–23 of 23 studies in Getting a diagnosis published 2006 · 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.

Elderly people taking anticholinergic drugs had significant deficits in cognitive functioning and were highly likely to be classified as mildly cognitively impaired, although not at increased risk for dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 372 Evidence: moderate

Depressive symptoms were associated with increased risk of MCI, and this association was independent of underlying vascular disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,220 Evidence: moderate

Proteome-based plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2006-11-01

Alzheimer's disease is a common and devastating disease for which there is no readily available biomarker to aid diagnosis or to monitor disease progression. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 50 Evidence: moderate

During follow-up, 57 (42%) patients with MCI developed Alzheimer's disease, 21 (15%) developed other forms of dementia, and 56 (41%) remained cognitively stable for 5.2 years (range 4.0-6.8). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Inverse relation between in vivo amyloid imaging load and cerebrospinal fluid Abeta42 in humans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2006-03-01

These observations suggest that brain amyloid deposition results in low CSF Abeta(42), and that amyloid imaging and CSF Abeta(42) may potentially serve as antecedent biomarkers of (preclinical) AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In a cross-section of older adults, vitamin D deficiency was associated with low mood and with impairment on two of four measures of cognitive performance. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate

Frontotemporal dementia: clinicopathological correlations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2006-06-01

Clinical and neuropsychological features contribute to delineating the spectrum of pathology underlying a patient diagnosed with FTLD, but biomarkers are needed that, together with the clinical phenotype, can predict the underlying neuropathology. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

20 (45%) patients developed a neurological disorder after a mean of 11.5 years from the reported onset of RBD and a mean follow-up of 5.1 years from the diagnosis of idiopathic RBD at our sleep centre. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

These results suggest that the SLUMS and MMSE have comparable sensitivities, specificities, and area under the curve in detecting dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 702 Evidence: low

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

Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) was considered to be an uncommon cause of dementia until improved neuropathological staining methods for ubiquitin were developed in the late 1980's. Subsequent recognition that 10-15% of dementia cases in older people were associated with Lewy body pathology led to the publication in 1996 of Consensus clinical and pathological diagnostic criteria for the disorder. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Biomarkers are needed to assist in the diagnosis and medical management of various neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and dementia with Lewy body (DLB). 3 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