alzhub.org
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.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 26 studies in Getting a diagnosis published 2013 (page 1 of 2) · 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.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Change in end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries: site of death, place of care, and health care transitions in 2000, 2005, and 2009

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. JAMA 2013-02-01

Our random 20% sample included 848,303 fee-for-service Medicare decedents (mean age, 82.3 years; 57.9% female, 88.1% white). 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 270,202 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The prevalence and incidence of dementia with Lewy bodies: a systematic review of population and clinical studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Psychological medicine 2013-03-25

DLB currently accounts for around one in 25 dementia cases diagnosed in the community and one in 13 cases in secondary care. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Screening for cognitive impairment in older adults: A systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2013-11-01

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Association between hypoglycemia and dementia in a biracial cohort of older adults with diabetes mellitus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2013-07-01

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Contribution of cerebrovascular disease in autopsy confirmed neurodegenerative disease cases in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Centre

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2013-07-10

Cerebrovascular disease and vascular risk factors are associated with Alzheimer's disease, but the evidence for their association with other neurodegenerative disorders is limited. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Neurodegenerative disease status and post-mortem pathology in idiopathic rapid-eye-movement sleep behaviour disorder: an observational cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2013-04-03

Our findings indicate that in most patients diagnosed with IRBD this parasomnia represents the prodromal phase of a Lewy body disorder. 1 key finding →

Participants: 44 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

The CamPaIGN study of Parkinson's disease: 10-year outlook in an incident population-based cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2013-06-18

(1) outlook in PD is heterogeneous, with most dying or developing dementia or postural instability by 10 years from diagnosis, but a quarter still doing well, with preserved mobility and intact cognition; (2) death is not directly related to PD in the majority; (3) baseline clinical and genetic variables are predictive of outcome and may be helpful in selecting patients for clinical trials. 1 key finding →

Participants: 142 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Definition and description of schizophrenia in the DSM-5

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Schizophrenia research 2013-06-22

Although dementia praecox or schizophrenia has been considered a unique disease for over a century, its definitions and boundaries have changed over this period and its etiology and pathophysiology remain elusive. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Using exome sequencing to reveal mutations in TREM2 presenting as a frontotemporal dementia-like syndrome without bone involvement

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2013-01-01

Our results show that TREM2 is responsible for an unexpectedly high number of dementia cases in our cohort, suggesting that this gene should be taken into account when mutations in other dementia genes are excluded. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Delayed emergence of a parkinsonian disorder or dementia in 81% of older men initially diagnosed with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder: a 16-year update on a previously reported series

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Sleep medicine 2013-01-22

The vast majority of men > or =50 years old initially diagnosed with iRBD in this study eventually developed a parkinsonian disorder/dementia, often after a prolonged interval from onset of iRBD, with the mean interval being 14 years while the range extended to 29 years. 2 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Validation of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2013-08-15

The results of this study provide objective validation of the ACE-III as a screening tool for cognitive deficits in FTD and AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 33 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

↑ 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