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 85 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment of type cross-sectional study (page 2 of 4) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 85 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.

The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most widely used instrument for the screening of cognitive impairment worldwide, but its ability to produce valid estimates of dementia in populations of low socioeconomic status and minimal literacy skills has not been adequately established. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,933 Evidence: low

The BHA has excellent performance characteristics in detecting cognitive impairment including dementia and MCI in a Hispanic population in Cuba and outperformed the MoCA. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 146 Evidence: low

Our findings indicate that AD patients present impairments in some key functional abilities, such as gait, turning and sitting, sit to stand, and reaction time, both in mild and moderate AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 22 Evidence: low

Among these patients, 29 were diagnosed with CHE by the PHES test (35.36% prevalence) and 28 of those obtained equal diagnosis by the Stroop EncephalApp (96.6% sensitivity). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 82 Evidence: low

The independent and combined effects of physical and cognitive domains of frailty in predicting the development of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia are not firmly established. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Reliability of six physical performance tests in older people with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Physical therapy 2012-09-13

Physical performance tests are important for assessing the effect of physical activity interventions in older people with dementia, but their psychometric properties have not been systematically established within this specific population. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 58 Evidence: low

T2D-related brain dysfunction in mid-life manifests as attentional loss accompanied by evidence of subtle neurodegeneration and global reduction in cerebral metabolism, in the absence of overt cerebrovascular disease. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

We report the development and validation of an MDS-based cognitive index, the MDS Cognition Scale (MDS-COGS), by evaluating it against two popular dementia rating scales, the Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 133 Evidence: low

The purpose of this study was to assess the cross-sectional prevalence and characteristics of anxiety among patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), as compared with patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), patients with vascular dementia (VaD), and normal control subjects. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 115 Evidence: low

The aim of the study was to investigate the value of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for use by general practitioners (GPs) in a group of elderly patients in whom the GPs are considering a dementia diagnosis. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114 Evidence: low

Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are non-cognitive symptoms commonly associated to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,014 Evidence: low

Elevated FSH and reduced LH may be associated with poorer cognition and an increased risk of AD-D in very old Chinese adults, particularly in males. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 509 Evidence: moderate

Complex activities of daily living in mild cognitive impairment: conceptual and diagnostic issues

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Age and ageing 2006-03-02

The impact of cognitive impairment on activities of daily living (ADL) is being used as a major criterion for differentiating between mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 45 Evidence: low

We included 3074 AD patients (mean age 78.1 years; 59.4% women), of whom 1028 used statins (79.6% simvastatin, 20.4% atorvastatin). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,074 Evidence: moderate

ANOVA and Bayesian t-test found no significant differences between the task when it was remotely self-administered by participants at home compared to when it was taken under controlled lab conditions. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Primary healthcare providers are deficient in knowledge of dementia Alzheimer's or cognitive assessment tools, and so they do not routinely carryout cognitive screening in elderly patients during clinic visits. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional 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 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