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 701–725 of 881 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment (page 29 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.

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.

It is widely known that exogenous formaldehyde exposure induces human cognitive impairment and animal memory loss; and recent studies show that formaldehyde at pathological levels induces Aβ deposition and misfolding of tau protein to form globular amyloid-like aggregates. 4 key findings →

Participants: 141 Evidence: low

This study aimed to validate the TICS and modified TICS (TICSm) in Korean elderly population and to compare MCI and dementia screening ability between TICS and TICSm. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Both DLB and DAT groups exhibited impaired performance across the range of tasks designed to assess semantic memory. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The study highlights the potential of integrating 18 F-FDG-PET with CSF biomarkers to improve the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of AD, emphasizing the complexity and regional specificity of biomarker interactions in neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →

Participants: 90 Evidence: moderate

Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q), and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale plus National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center-Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration module (NACC-FTLD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 168 Evidence: low

Emerging evidence indicates that globus pallidus (GP) function can be modulated by orexin-A in movement disorders, while its role in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) remains unclear. 4 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

Among 42 participants (median age: 71 years, 66.7% female), 26 (61.9%) were classified as progressors. 5 key findings →

Participants: 42 Evidence: low

Cognitive assessment and analysis of plasma biomarkers are lower-cost options for the early assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 327 Evidence: low

A total of 156 patients were clinically diagnosed with dementia based on the 2011 NIA-AA criteria, regardless of specific disease etiology, and all exhibited significant brain atrophy on anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), indicating neuronal injury (N+). 5 key findings →

Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate

Groups of patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, and progressive supranuclear palsy or Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome, matched for overall clinical disability, were compared using three computerised cognitive tests previously shown to be sensitive to frontal lobe dysfunction. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an identified prodromal stage of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), often evades detection in the early stages of the condition, when existing diagnostic methods are employed in the clinical setting. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Modest relationships were seen between mean VPC novelty preference and the PACC (r=.39, P=.007) and NIHTB-CB (r=.35, P=.03) composite scores, and additional individual neurocognitive task scores including letter fluency (r=.33, P=.02), category fluency (r=.36, P=.01), and Trail Making Test A (-.40, P=.006). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The positive results pave the way for the deployment of the system to a nonsupervised environment, thus representing a potential efficacious and ecological solution to support clinicians in the identification of early signs of cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Due to the lack of pharmacological treatment for dementia, timely detection of subjects at risk can be of seminal importance for preemptive rehabilitation interventions. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Preclinical AD risk, defined as possessing at least one APOE ε4 allele, is not only associated with mean-level performance differences, but also with increases in variability across repeated testing occasions particularly on a test of processing speed. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cerebral atrophy has been detected in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) both with and without dementia, however differentiation based on genetic status has thus far not yielded robust findings. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

↑ 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