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 26–50 of 327 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment · free to read (page 2 of 14) · 29,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 327 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 “Cognitive tests and assessment” covers

Cognitive tests and assessment — Memory and thinking tests, screening tools and rating scales: how well they measure what they claim to.

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.

This study aimed to investigate the association between a virtual reality (VR) intervention program and cognitive, brain and physical functions in high-risk older adults. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 68 Evidence: high

Epidemiologic evidence suggests that cognitive and physical activities are associated with better cognition in late life. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Cognitive decline is a debilitating manifestation of disease progression in Parkinson's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,200 Evidence: moderate

The impact of Parkinson's disease (PD) dementia is substantial and has major functional and socioeconomic consequences. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 486 Evidence: moderate

The objective of this study was to determine whether treatment with the nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) indomethacin slows cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: high

The treatment of ischaemic stroke with neuroprotective drugs has been unsuccessful, and whether these compounds can be used to reduce disability after recurrent stroke is unknown. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20,332 Evidence: high

Although both overt hyper- and hypothyroidism are known to lead to cognitive impairment, data on the association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and cognitive function are conflicting. 4 key findings →

Participants: 6,410 Evidence: low

There are 9.9 million new cases of dementia in the world every year. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 52 Evidence: high

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is an increasingly used screening tool for cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 710 Evidence: moderate

Effect of TTP488 in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. BMC neurology 2014-01-15

A previous report describes decreased decline in ADAS-cog (delta = 3.1, p = 0.008 at 18 months, ANCOVA with multiple imputation), relative to placebo, following a 5 mg/day dose of TTP488. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 399 Evidence: high

Lipid-lowering medications (LLMs) and especially statin drugs can delay cognitive decline and dementia onset in individuals with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

A four month, parallel group, placebo controlled trial undertaken in three centres in Tehran, Iran. 2 key findings →

Participants: 42 Evidence: low

Recent GWAS studies focused on uncovering novel genetic loci related to AD have revealed associations with variants near CLU, CR1, PICALM and BIN1. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

From a longitudinal study of normal (Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] = 0; n = 77) and mildly impaired (CDR = 0.5; n = 167) participants with 5 or more annual clinical assessments, baseline level of cognitive impairment in daily life was graded using CDR sum of boxes (CDR-SB) and level of cognitive performance impairment was graded using neuropsychological test scores. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate

Poor vitamin D nutrition is linked with dementia, but vitamin D has not been tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This study examined rates of dementia progression as ascertained by the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) for symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (sAD), and assessed participant characteristics as predictors of CDR-SB progression. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 792 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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