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 26 studies in Getting a diagnosis published 2014 (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 26 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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.

Insulin resistance causes diminished glucose uptake in similar regions of the brain in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate

Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: the IWG-2 criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. The Lancet Neurology 2014-05-18

This Position Paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of the International Working Group research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework for Alzheimer's disease.

Evidence: low

There are commonalities in the prevalence of problems across cancer and non-cancer patients, highlighting the need for palliative care to be provided irrespective of diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 57 Evidence: high

The 3D-CAM operationalizes the CAM algorithm using a 3-minute structured assessment with high sensitivity and specificity relative to a reference standard and could be an important tool for improving recognition of delirium. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 201 Evidence: low

Neurodegenerative disorder risk in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder: study in 174 patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. PloS one 2014-02-26

In a large IRBD cohort diagnosed in a tertiary referal sleep center, prolonged follow-up indicated that the majority of patients are eventually diagnosed with the synucleinopathies PD, DLB and less frequently MSA. 3 key findings →

Participants: 174 Evidence: moderate

Optimizing patient care and research: the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2014-01-01

Since its opening in 2000, patient care and research go hand in hand at the Alzheimer center of the VU University Medical Center, both organized in such a way that they mutually strengthen each other. 1 key finding →

Participants: 4,000 Evidence: moderate

Synaptic dysfunction is an early event in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis and directly related to cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →

Participants: 100 Evidence: low

Olfactory bulb involvement in neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2014-02-20

Olfactory dysfunction is a common and early symptom of many neurodegenerative diseases, particularly of Parkinson's disease and other synucleinopathies, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and mild cognitive impairment heralding its progression to dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 536 Evidence: moderate

Diagnostic criteria for vascular cognitive disorders: a VASCOG statement

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2014-07-01

The proposed criteria for VCD provide a coherent approach to the diagnosis of this diverse group of disorders, with a view to stimulating clinical and pathologic validation studies. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Several potential disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have failed to show any effect on disease progression in clinical trials, conceivably because the AD subjects are already too advanced to derive clinical benefit from treatment and because diagnosis based on clinical criteria alone introduces a high misdiagnosis rate. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The DSM-5 criteria, level of arousal and delirium diagnosis: inclusiveness is safer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. BMC medicine 2014-10-08

Altered consciousness has been regarded as a core feature of delirium; the fact that consciousness itself should be physiologically disrupted due to acute illness attests to its clinical urgency. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a rapid screening battery, also including subtests to assess frontal functions such as set-shifting, abstraction and cognitive flexibility. 4 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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