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 726–750 of 1,139 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment marked Peer-reviewed(page 30 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.
Offspring of patients with dementia are motivated to contribute to home-based monitoring research by using iVitality and are able to use the smartphone application. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·JMIR aging·2022-09-19
We demonstrated its effectiveness over state-of-the-art methods on a real-world data set of 9363 days collected from 15 participant households by the UK Dementia Research Institute between August 2019 and July 2021. 5 key findings →
The current study demonstrates that self-administered online tests can be used to remotely assess different types of variability in people at risk of Alzheimer`s. Our findings show small but significantly more interindividual differences in people with aMCI. 5 key findings →
Our findings indicate that PCPs documented more care approaches in patients with greater cognitive impairment based on the CAMCI results and this was independent of their, the patients', or families' prior concerns about their patients' cognition. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2026-02-10
Oculomotor abnormalities are a common finding in neurodegenerative diseases due to degeneration of neural pathways and brain regions involved in controlling eye movements. 5 key findings →
This EEG study investigates the role of the cholinergic system, cortico-cortical connections, and sub-cortical white matter on the relationship between individual EEG frequencies and their relative power bands. 4 key findings →
The objective of this study was to examine the quality of life in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) in a community-based sample (n = 228 patients) using a Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) as a measure. 4 key findings →
Both patient groups performed equally poorly on tests of episodic and semantic memory with the exception of immediate and delayed story recall, which was worse in the AD group. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Gerontology·2013-08-17
Frailty is commonly considered as a syndrome with several symptoms, including weight loss, exhaustion, weakness, slow walking speed and physical inactivity. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2005-03-01
Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) scales are particularly important in older people as global outcome measures for interventions. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·BMC neurology·2014-05-07
Intervention and treatment in Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD-dementia) can be cost effective but the majority of patients are not diagnosed in a timely manner. 4 key findings →
This study aimed to determine the stratified normative data by age and education for a modified version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) test from a large sample of community-dwelling Chinese older adults in Singapore, and to examine the MMSE's value in detecting early cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
Social, psychological, and psychiatric characteristics were compared in suicide attempters (70 years and older) and a representative population sample. 4 key findings →
Although preclinical dementia is characterized by decline in cognition and daily functioning, little is known on their temporal sequence. 4 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been considered a transitional state between normal aging and dementia, characterised by memory impairment but normal general cognitive functioning. 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.