Observational studyBMC neurology2026
Diagnostic delay in early-onset Alzheimer's disease in Japan: a retrospective study.
Observational study in BMC neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosing early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) has unique challenges compared with late-onset AD (LOAD), but the diagnostic journey in Japan is unknown. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the time from symptom onset to diagnosis of EOAD compared with LOAD in Japan, and to investigate factors affecting the time to diagnosis.
methodsPatients aged between 18 and 79 years who were diagnosed between April 2011 and March 2023 at participating facilities across Japan with "probable AD dementia", "mild cognitive impairment due to AD", or an equivalent diagnosis were included. Patients were categorized by age of onset as EOAD (< 65 years) or LOAD (≥ 65 years). Eligible EOAD and time-matched LOAD patients were enrolled. This retrospective observational study was registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry on 28 November 2023 (UMIN000052928).
resultsThe mean (standard deviation) time from symptom onset to diagnosis (primary endpoint) was 138.3 (91.0) weeks for EOAD (n = 79) and 99.6 (81.5) weeks for LOAD (n = 59) (p = 0.011). Time from symptom onset to first medical visit was 89.0 (74.2) weeks (EOAD) and 57.6 (71.5) weeks (LOAD) (p = 0.024). No difference between EOAD and LOAD was found in the time after the first medical visit to diagnosis.
conclusionsIn Japan, patients with EOAD experienced a longer time to diagnosis than patients with LOAD. Symptoms, regional differences, and access to medical care may have influenced the time to diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to raise awareness of the disease and the need for early consultation, even among non-elderly individuals.
trial registrationUMIN000052928.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.