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

31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 451–475 of 530 studies · free to read (page 19 of 22) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 530 studies tagged mini-mental — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,851 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

A 12-week app-based multidomain intervention ameliorates cognitive performance in patients with mild cognitive impairment: preliminary results of the MEMODIO_APP@CARE RCT

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. European Psychiatry 2025-04-01

For the interim analysis as of October 2024, the results of the MCI study arm are reported (n=42). 5 key findings →

Participants: 42 Evidence: high

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

Cerebrospinal fluid profiles and prospective course and outcome in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2011-01-01

Total tau (T-tau), tau phosphorylated at threonine 181, and β-amyloid 1-42 peptide (Aβ42) were immunoassayed in CSF samples obtained from patients with MCI enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Screening for the Spectrum of Cognitive Impairment in Primary Care: Development of a Machine Learning Informed, Workflow‐Friendly Care Model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

In the testing cohort, the super learner obtained a concordance statistic (95% confidence interval) of 0.822 (0.810, 0.835), higher than any of the individual ML models (Figure 1), and its predicted risk aligned with observed risk in calibration slope plots (Figure 2). 2 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: moderate

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

Optimal cut-off scores for the Mini Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment to detect MCI and dementia in Multiple System Atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders 2025-07-30

According to the II level neuropsychological evaluation, 4.8 % of MSA patients met criteria for dementia and 53,2 % for MCI. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Comparative Evaluation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic Scale Against the Mini-Mental State Examination for Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. ALPHA PSYCHIATRY 2025-04-22

Most factors of the MoCA-B were significantly different between the two groups, and the PSCN group completed the MoCA-B faster (p 0.05). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Measurement differences in the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol across ethnicity and language in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Neuropsychology 2026-02-09

We observed measurement differences in the HCAP across H/L and NHW older adults for the memory, language, executive functioning, and orientation, but not visuospatial, domains. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Comparison of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Mini‐Mental State Examination in community‐dwelling very old Blacks/African Americans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Participants had age mean = 81.7, SD = 4.5, range=75-93; educational attainment mean = 14.6, SD = 4.0, range=7-22, 17.2% < 12; 86.2% were women. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Converting short cognitive screen scores: Comparing the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen, Montreal cognitive assessment, and Mini-mental state examination

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease Reports 2026-04-01

This study provides validated conversion tables between the Q mci screen and two widely-used cognitive instruments, to support the use of the Q mci screen in research (facilitating cross-instrument comparability and harmonization across studies), and clinical settings (determining eligibility for disease-modifying therapies). 2 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: moderate

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

Caregiver burden in mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease—a longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Psychogeriatrics 2025-04-09

At baseline, the mean ZBI score was 24.5 ± 15.2 and correlated positively with caregiver CES-D and STAI scores and with patient neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI-frequency × severity) and distress felt by the caregiver (NPI-distress). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Statistical Method for Identification of Alzheimer's Disease in Mild Cognitive Impairment with Multimodal Predictive Markers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Basic and Clinical Neuroscience Journal 2025-03-01

Our findings showed the strong predictive potential of PET, particularly florbetaben (FBB), which achieved an AUC of 0.84. 5 key findings →

Participants: 487 Evidence: low

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

Evaluating Sociodemographic Bias in an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm to Detect Cognitive Impairment in Electronic Health Records

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Our study highlights the potential of Decipher‐AI for screening undiagnosed cognitive impairment in primary care. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Neighborhood Deprivation, Subjective and Objective Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Neighborhood deprivation is associated with Future research should investigate the possible mechanisms of this association to identify optimal interventions at the neighborhood level. 5 key findings →

Participants: 596 Evidence: low

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

Assessing Cognitive Impairment in the Health and Retirement Study Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol Project: Comparing a Diagnostic Algorithm With a Diagnostic Consensus Panel

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of Aging and Health 2025-04-15

BackgroundAccurate classification of cognitive impairment in population studies is challenging. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Classifying mild cognitive impairment from normal cognition: fMRI complexity matches tau PET performance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring 2025-07-01

The fMRI entropy classifier matched the tau PET model in accuracy and outperformed it in F1 score (0.64 vs. 0.61) and area under the curve (AUC; 0.73 vs. 0.67). 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

↑ 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.

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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events