Home › Research › Clinical trials
New Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnostics and Psychological Clinical Perspectives
Aversi MTM, Freitas PM, Aversi-Ferreira TA.. PsyArXiv, 2026-07-23
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Recent advances in blood-based biomarkers have transformed the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), enabling the identification of biological risk at preclinical and presymptomatic stages in a noninvasive and accessible manner. Despite this diagnostic progress, the expansion of psychological clinical services in dementia care has not kept pace, representing a critical gap in the current management of AD. This theoretical paper critically discusses the role of psychological clinical practice in the prevention and management of AD in light of these diagnostic advances, particularly from the perspective of the International Working Group (IWG), which defines AD as a clinical-biological entity and recommends that cognitively normal individuals with positive biomarkers be considered at risk rather than diagnosed. Based on this framework and on evidence from the 2024 Lancet Commission on dementia prevention, we propose a three-phase roadmap for the integration of psychological care into multidisciplinary AD management. Phase 1 encompasses universal prevention through psychoeducation, cognitive reserve promotion, and emotional education. Phase 2 targets at-risk individuals with elevated biomarker profiles, focusing on neuropsychological evaluation, risk disclosure support, and early cognitive intervention. Phase 3 addresses individuals with established AD through cognitive rehabilitation and caregiver support. We further argue that government policies must integrate psychologists into multidisciplinary neurological and geriatric teams, and that psychology training programs must be updated to prepare professionals for preventive roles. More research on standardized psychological protocols for pre-dementia contexts is urgently needed.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Aversi, M. T. M., Freitas, P. M., & Aversi-Ferreira, T. A. (2026). New Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnostics and Psychological Clinical Perspectives. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sz4ay_v1
Vancouver
Aversi MTM, Freitas PM, Aversi-Ferreira TA. New Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnostics and Psychological Clinical Perspectives. PsyArXiv. 2026. doi:10.31234/osf.io/sz4ay_v1.
BibTeX
@article{aversi2026-24e6bbda,
author = {Aversi, M. T. M. and Freitas, P. M. and Aversi-Ferreira, T. A.},
title = {{New Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnostics and Psychological Clinical Perspectives}},
journal = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/sz4ay_v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sz4ay_v1}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Phase 1 encompasses universal prevention through psychoeducation, cognitive reserve promotion, and emotional education.
- Phase 2 targets at-risk individuals with elevated biomarker profiles, focusing on neuropsychological evaluation, risk disclosure support, and early cognitive intervention.
- Phase 3 addresses individuals with established AD through cognitive rehabilitation and caregiver support.
- We further argue that government policies must integrate psychologists into multidisciplinary neurological and geriatric teams, and that psychology training programs must be updated to prepare professionals for preventive roles.
- More research on standardized psychological protocols for pre-dementia contexts is urgently needed.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Registered clinical trials →
Study details
- Study designclinical trial
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (PsyArXiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 13 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100. |
| Total | 21 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Clinical trials
Also in Clinical trials
10 studies in the library are filed under Clinical trials with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical trials hub.