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 1–25 of 28 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 28 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 28 studies tagged small — clear

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.

Vascular cognitive impairment without dementia is very common among the aged and tends to progress to dementia, but there have been no proper large-scale intervention trials dedicated to it. 4 key findings →

Participants: 281 Evidence: high

Delirium is a profound neuropsychiatric disturbance precipitated by acute illness. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 465 Evidence: moderate

Patients with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) exhibit decreased retinal blood flow and vessel density (VD). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate

Cerebral microbleeds are associated with worse cognitive function: the Rotterdam Scan Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2012-01-18

Cerebral microbleeds are frequently found in the general elderly population and may reflect underlying vascular disease, but their role in cognitive function is unknown. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,979 Evidence: low

The aim of the study was to compare the long-term efficacy of high versus low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), applied bilaterally over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), on cognitive function and cortical excitability of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This is the first study to assess cerebral microinfarcts (CMIs) on 3 tesla (3T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a memory clinic population. 4 key findings →

Participants: 238 Evidence: low

Post-stroke depression, executive dysfunction and functional outcome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. European journal of neurology 2002-05-01

The early diagnosis of vascular cognitive impairment has been challenged and executive control function has been suggested to be a rational basis for the diagnosis of vascular dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate

Prior studies report that subjects with neuropathologic evidence of AD and concomitant brain infarcts had poorer cognitive function and higher frequency of dementia than those with AD alone. 4 key findings →

Participants: 74 Evidence: low

During follow-up, cholinergic WMHV was associated with an annual decline of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (β coefficient, -0.239; P = 0.004), and incident dementia (HR = 3.54; 95%CI: 2.05-6.10). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 751 Evidence: moderate

Whole-brain bm-CVR values were significantly associated with the diagnosis group of normal, MCI, and early dementia (β = -3.00%/mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-5.42, -0.58]), and were lower in the impaired participants relative to participants with normal cognition (β = -2.18, CI [-3.91, -0.45]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate

Eleven patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) were selected from an initial cohort of 43 patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 43 Evidence: moderate

The global aging population has led to a significant rise in dementia and cognitive decline, with Alzheimer's disease as the primary cause. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 510 Evidence: moderate

Compared to controls, the AD/VaD patient group had a significantly higher WML volume (p < .001), reduced global CBF (p < .001), greater brain atrophy, and worse ADAS-Cog scores (p < .001). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

We investigated possible abnormalities in the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macula lutea of patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and tested for any correlation with the severity of dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 72 Evidence: low

Type 2 diabetes is associated with cognitive dysfunction and increases the risk of dementia in the elderly. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The clinical impact of Alzheimer's disease pathology at biopsy was investigated in 56 cognitively impaired patients undergoing shunt surgery for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q), and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale plus National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center-Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration module (NACC-FTLD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 168 Evidence: low

The observation group had significantly higher blood uric acid levels than the control group (P<0.05). 5 key findings →

Participants: 84 Evidence: low

Both V3 width and plasma Hcy concentration were negatively correlated with MoCA scores in PD (r=-0.358, P<0.001; r=-0.187, P=0.013, respectively). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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