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 376–400 of 1,139 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment marked Peer-reviewed(page 16 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.
The best predictor of CDR at 36 months was M, a DCB reflecting recall ability (area under the curve = 0.84), outperforming traditional scores. 5 key findings →
Average compliance by time of day ranged from 90.2% for morning sessions, to 77.9% for afternoon sessions, and 84.4% for evening sessions. 5 key findings →
Higher concentrations of pTau181 and GFAP were associated with slower responses on working memory tasks (pTau181: β = 0.261; p = 0.007; GFAP: β = 0.175, p = 0.036), and higher β-amyloid 42/40 ratio was associated with better vocabulary (β = 0.260, p = 0.009). 4 key findings →
Our results demonstrated that dual-task could significantly improve the ability to predict cognitive impairment based on gait parameters such as gait speed (GS) and stride length (SL). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2020-03-31
The search for early biomarkers of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been central to the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and dementia research community in recent years. 1 key finding →
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Administrative Core oversees and coordinates all ADNI activities, to ensure the success and maximize the impact of ADNI in advancing Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and clinical trials. 1 key finding →
Although a small-scale study (n = 60), it suggests that older adults operate in larger geographic spaces than in the areas where they reside. 5 key findings →
Our findings suggest that VStore is a promising assessment that engages standard cognitive domains and is sensitive to age-related cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
MTD demonstrated high usability as defined by completion rates in this research sample that includes a broad age range, though participation rates are lower in individuals with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
The overall sample had a mean ACE-III score of 91/100 (SD 6) with 15.7% (16/102) scoring at or below the cut-off score considered to represent objective cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Brain and behavior·2023-12-02
The German BHA and BHS are more sensitive to mild NCD and non-AD presentations than the MoCA and thus have a high potential to identify patients with NCD in primary care earlier than currently used screens. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JMIR aging·2025-02-26
Our results suggest that BC-Assess could serve as an effective alternative tool to DSRS for grading dementia severity, particularly in cases where DSRS, or other global assessments, may be challenging to obtain due to logistical and time constraints. 5 key findings →
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 →
In this pragmatic prospective cohort study we found that the PDT was used by elderly care physicians, with mediocre user satisfaction. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Digital health·2024-01-01
This pilot study indicates that Silvia-Rx's digital cognitive program is feasible for people diagnosed with MCI, suggests potential for improving cognitive function, though further research with large sample size is needed to confirm these results. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2012-04-01
Rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is common in Parkinson disease (PD), but its relationship to the varied neurotransmitter deficits of PD and prognostic significance remain incompletely understood. 4 key findings →
Recently, there has been growing interest in the glymphatic system (the functional waste clearance pathway for the central nervous system and its role in flushing solutes (such as amyloid ß and tau), metabolic, and other cellular waste products in the brain. 4 key findings →
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.