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 1,137 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment marked Peer-reviewed (page 2 of 46) · 29,780 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)

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.

This study investigated the effect of a home-based computerized cognitive training program that utilizes a digital application for training abacus-based mental calculations, "SoroTouch," on the cognitive functions of healthy middle-aged and older people using a randomized controlled trial. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high

In this study, NPTs have excellent potential to improve cognition in people with dementia, and PBM may have more significant benefits in improving cognition than the other four NPTs. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 38 Evidence: high

150 dyads were randomised (FindMyApps n = 76, care-as-usual n = 74). 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 76 Evidence: high

By providing evidence for or against the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the FindMyApps intervention, the results of the trial will influence national implementation of FindMyApps. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 75 Evidence: high

The BTS implemented in MYB is focused on maximizing adherence and engagement with CCT over the short and long term in the setting of a fully digital trial, which, if successful, could be delivered economically at scale. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 100 Evidence: high

The addition of CS to the SPEP was a safe and effective method to gain statistically significant improvements in cognition, balance, FM, UEMS, IADL, and reduction in depression in PwAD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: high

Multidomain lifestyle modification is considered an effective intervention for dementia prevention due to its multifactorial nature. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high

Despite the large number of commercially available mobile health applications, the magnitude of the scientific evidence base remains very limited. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 21 Evidence: high

Middle-aged multidomain risk reduction interventions targeting modifiable risk factors for dementia may delay or prevent a third of dementia cases in later life. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high

This study showed no benefit of the CT program on working memory, processing speed and executive function. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 Evidence: high

This clinical trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of a 6-week course of daily neuroAD™ therapy. 4 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: high

Benefits of rivastigmine on attention in dementia associated with Parkinson disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. Neurology 2005-11-01

In a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of rivastigmine, 487 patients with dementia associated with Parkinson disease underwent assessment of attention on the Cognitive Drug Research computerized cognitive assessment system before dosing and 16 and 24 weeks later. 2 key findings →

Participants: 487 Evidence: high

The use of ecologically oriented approaches with virtual reality (VR) depicting instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) is a promising approach for interventions on acquired brain injuries. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 17 Evidence: high

Participants in the experimental group had better overall subjective memory, subjective retrospective memory and global quality of life, with fewer depressive symptoms than those in the control group 3 months following the program. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high

Over six months, the intervention group showed a stable global cognitive function score (Mini Mental Status Examination), whereas the control group showed a cognitive decline (ANCOVA-interaction: F1, 14 = 5.083, p = .041; controlled for disease duration and education). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Our sample had a mean age of 66.8 (SD = 5.3) years, a mean HAM-D score of 19.4 (SD = 7.5), and a mean PHQ-9 score of 18.0 (SD = 6.3). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high

Masitinib is an orally administered tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets activated cells of the neuroimmune system (mast cells and microglia). 4 key findings →

Participants: 182 Evidence: high

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Parkinson's disease (PD) may be associated with subtle functional impairment and worse quality of life. 4 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: high

The 4-week USMART modestly improved information retrieval in older people with MCI, and was well accepted with minimal technical support. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

Reliability and Validity of Smartphone Cognitive Testing for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. JAMA network open 2024-04-01

The findings of this cohort study suggest that smartphones could offer a feasible, reliable, valid, and scalable solution for remote evaluations of FTLD and may improve early detection. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 258 Evidence: moderate

Technology Literacy as a Barrier to Telehealth During COVID-19

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2020-05-19

Prior work has shown that the video component significantly contributes to quality and satisfaction of the visit.3 In addition to the technology itself, patients need to know what to expect for their telehealth appointments. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 5,000 Evidence: high

↑ 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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