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 401–425 of 881 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment (page 17 of 36) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Other 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.

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 midlife cognitive profiles of adults at high risk of late-onset Alzheimer's disease: The PREVENT study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2017-03-30

Middle-aged adults at risk of dementia show evidence of poorer cognitive performance, principally in visuospatial functions. 1 key finding →

Participants: 210 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Cognitive Testing in People at Increased Risk of Dementia Using a Smartphone App: The iVitality Proof-of-Principle Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2017-05-25

Repeated smartphone-assisted cognitive testing is feasible with reasonable adherence and moderate relative validity for the Stroop and the Trail Making tests compared with conventional neuropsychological tests. 3 key findings →

Participants: 151 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Co-design of a Smartphone App for People Living With Dementia by Applying Agile, Iterative Co-design Principles: Development and Usability Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2022-01-14

We found patient and care partner input to be critical throughout the development process for early identification of design and usability issues and for identifying solutions not previously considered by our research team. 2 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A Computerized Cognitive Test Battery for Detection of Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: Instrument Validation Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JMIR aging 2022-04-15

BrainCheck was able to distinguish between diagnoses of dementia, MCI, and NC, providing a potentially reliable tool for early detection of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →

Participants: 99 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

An App-Based Mindfulness-Based Self-compassion Program to Support Caregivers of People With Dementia: Participatory Feasibility Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JMIR aging 2021-11-26

Although there were no significant changes in caregiver burden, we were encouraged by the increased emotional well-being of our participants following the completion of our program. 4 key findings →

Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Validation of the Remote Automated ki:e Speech Biomarker for Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Verification and Validation following DiME V3 Framework

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Digital biomarkers 2022-09-30

Our results suggest that the ki:e SB-C is an objective, scalable, and reliable indicator of cognitive decline, fit for purpose as a remote assessment in clinical early dementia trials. 3 key findings →

Participants: 69 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A Validation Study of the Inbrain CST: a Tablet Computer-based Cognitive Screening Test for Elderly People with Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of Korean medical science 2020-08-31

First, in the normative sample, the total score on the Inbrain CST was significantly affected by age, years of education, and gender. 4 key findings →

Participants: 480 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Brain Network Integrity Changes in Subjective Cognitive Decline: A Possible Physiological Biomarker of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Frontiers in neurology 2021-08-30

Both DELPHI analysis of network function and DTI analysis detected a significant decrease in connectivity, excitability, and WM integrity in the SCD group compared to healthy control (HC) subjects; a significant decrease was also noted for aMCI and Dementia groups compared to HC. 3 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Unsupervised mobile app-based cognitive testing in a population-based study of older adults born 1944

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Frontiers in digital health 2022-11-08

MDT-OS and ORR-LDR were weakly-to-moderately correlated with the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC5) (r = 0.3-0.44, p < .001) and with several other measures of episodic memory, processing speed, and executive function. 5 key findings →

Participants: 172 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Applying the Health Belief Model to Quantify and Investigate Expectations for Computerized Cognitive Training

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice 2020-08-01

Despite the demonstrated benefits of computerized cognitive training for older adults, little is known about the determinants of training behavior. 3 key findings →

Participants: 219 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Machine learning-based estimation of the mild cognitive impairment stage using multimodal physical and behavioral measures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Scientific reports 2025-10-09

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a prodromal stage of dementia, and its early detection is critical for improving clinical outcomes. 5 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The development and validation of a digital biomarker for remote assessment of Alzheimer's diseases risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Digital health 2024-01-23

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Computerized cognitive performance assessments in the Brooklyn Cognitive Impairments in Health Disparities Pilot Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2019-11

Cognigram was piloted in the Emergency Department, Family Medicine, and Geriatric Psychiatry clinics: 58 adults (23 men, 35 women), 67.9 ± 9.8 years (range 43-91), completed the Cognigram and 5-item liking survey. 5 key findings →

Participants: 58 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Individualised computerised cognitive training for community-dwelling people with mild cognitive impairment: study protocol of a completely virtual, randomised, controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Trials 2022-05-05

This is the first study to investigate the effect of MAKSCog, an individualised CCT, specifically developed for people with different subtypes of MCI. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Remote and in-clinic digital cognitive screening tools outperform the MoCA to distinguish cerebral amyloid status among cognitively healthy older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2023-11-27

Average performance on the episodic memory (Prices) smartphone task showed the highest accuracy (AUC = 0.77) to distinguish Aβ status. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Irreversible motor impairment in young addicts--ephedrone, manganism or both?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Acta neurologica Scandinavica 2007-06-01

Parkinsonian syndrome related to intravenous use of a "designer" psychostimulant, derived from pseudoephedrine using potassium permanganate as the oxidant, has been observed in drug addicts in Estonia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Defining mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society 2007-07-01

Our purpose was to characterize a state of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Parkinson's disease (PD) (PD-MCI) that would be analogous to the MCI that is posited as a precursor of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

The Mini-Mental State Examination in general medical practice: clinical utility and acceptance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Mayo Clinic proceedings 1996-09-01

The efficacy of the MMSE for screening was measured in a subsample of age- and sex-matched patients with dementia (N = 185) and control subjects (N = 227). 4 key findings →

Participants: 185 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

↑ 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