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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1,051–1,075 of 1,138 studies (page 43 of 46) · 27,380 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 1,138 studies tagged cognitive-function — 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; 12,859 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.

Is the Mediterranean diet a feasible approach to preserving cognitive function and reducing risk of dementia for older adults in Western countries? New insights and future directions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2015-11-02

The rise in the ageing population has resulted in increased incident rates of cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Lifestyle change and the prevention of cognitive decline and dementia: what is the evidence?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Current opinion in psychiatry 2013-05-01

Epidemiological work has, however, identified modifiable lifestyle factors, such as poor diet and physical and cognitive inactivity, that are associated with the risk of dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Eating patterns are associated with cognitive function in the elderly at risk of metabolic syndrome from rural areas

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. European review for medical and pharmacological sciences 2014-01-01

Greater adherence to MedDiet and frequency of consumption of some foods were associated with better scores in several CF tests in elderly individuals with high risk of MS living in a rural community. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Gait and cognition: a complementary approach to understanding brain function and the risk of falling

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2012-10-30

Until recently, clinicians and researchers have performed gait assessments and cognitive assessments separately when evaluating older adults, but increasing evidence from clinical practice, epidemiological studies, and clinical trials shows that gait and cognition are interrelated in older adults. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Hospitalization and cognitive decline: Can the nature of the relationship be deciphered?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry 2013-02-06

There is evidence to support an association between hospitalization and development of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Positive effects of resistance training in frail elderly patients with dementia after long-term physical restraint

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Age (Dordrecht, Netherlands) 2013-11-16

This study investigated the effects of a multicomponent exercise intervention on muscle strength, incidence of falls and functional outcomes in frail elderly patients with dementia after long-term physical restraint, followed by 24 weeks of training cessation. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

New insights: dose-response relationship between psychotropic drugs and falls: a study in nursing home residents with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of clinical pharmacology 2011-05-31

The contribution of specific psychotropic drugs to fall risk in patients with dementia has not been quantified precisely until now. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

From across this tag

10 of the 1,130 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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