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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 301–325 of 1,139 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment marked Peer-reviewed(page 13 of 46)· 30,980 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)
From OpenAlex; 16,452 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
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.
Although many studies have found a cross-sectional relation between depression and dementia or depressive symptomatology and cognitive functioning, the direction of the association is still unknown. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2001-03-01
The sensitivity of MRI volumetric measures to detect cognitive dysfunction is examined in 39 participants of an epidemiological field study (age 75-85, MMSE 19-30). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2006-02-01
Although cross-sectional studies found an association between anaemia and dementia, longitudinal studies provided contradictory results. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neuropsychology·2007-03-01
The authors used mixed-effects growth models to examine longitudinal change in neuropsychological performance over a 4-year period among 197 individuals who were either normal or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2008-07-22
In one of the largest brain MRI studies to date, we used tensor-based morphometry (TBM) to create 3D maps of structural atrophy in 676 subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and healthy elderly controls, scanned as part of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2011-06-14
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 →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2008-11-08
As one of the earliest structures to degenerate in Alzheimer's disease (AD), the hippocampus is the target of many studies of factors that influence rates of brain degeneration in the elderly. 4 key findings →
The concept of cognitive reserve is proposed to explain the mismatch between the degree of pathological changes and their clinical manifestations and has been used to help understand the variation in the rate of cognitive decline and the development of dementias. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-05-01
A total of 533 patients with AD at early stages (mean Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 21/30 at entry) were recruited and followed semiannually for up to 13.1 years (mean 3) in five University-based AD centers in the United States and European Union. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2009-07-14
Tensor-based morphometry (TBM) is a powerful method to map the 3D profile of brain degeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →
Personalized repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the precuneus (PC) is emerging as a new non-invasive therapeutic approach in treating Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Combined rTMS and cognitive training may improve the cognitive status of AD patients, with TMS-induced cortical plasticity at baseline serving as predictor of therapeutic outcome for this intervention, and potential mechanism of action. 2 key findings →
Overall, individuals improved on all C3 measures over 12 months (β = 0.23, 95% CI [0.21-0.25], p < 0.001), but improvement over the first 3 months was greatest (β = 0.68, 95% CI [0.59-0.77], p < 0.001), suggesting stronger PE over initial repeated exposures. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·NPJ digital medicine·2024-03-26
Remote monitoring of cognition holds the promise to facilitate case-finding in clinical care and the individual detection of cognitive impairment in clinical and research settings. 1 key finding →
A MPT model of the MST can detect individuals with AD prior to cognitive decline, making it a potentially useful tool for screening and monitoring older adults during the asymptomatic phase of AD. 1 key finding →
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%),
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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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.