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 751–775 of 1,139 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment marked Peer-reviewed(page 31 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Chest·2005-03-01
The prevalence of comorbidities and functional impairment among elderly patients may enhance the risk of operation-related complications, but the importance of these conditions in elderly patients undergoing thoracic surgery remains unclear. 4 key findings →
To investigate the cognitive capacities of a cohort of ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke survivors and to identify the clinical determinants of post-stroke cognitive impairment, we evaluated 237 patients admitted to a Stroke Unit (mean age 59; SD=12.7). 4 key findings →
Understanding preclinical transitions to impairment in cognitive abilities associated with risks for functional difficulty and dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurology·1995-01-01
The Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) provides ratings of an individual's changes in everyday cognitive functions during the previous 10 years. 4 key findings →
Gait abnormalities are associated with cognitive decline, and reduced gait speed and gait asymmetry are markers of cognitive decline and increased fall risk in patients with established DLB. 5 key findings →
Serum beta-synuclein level was progressively increased in the AD continuum across the preclinical, MCI and dementia stages compared with controls and was correlated with serum pTau181 (r=0.710), NfL (r=0.494) and GFAP concentrations (r=0.621, p<0.001 for all). 5 key findings →
Among 1013 participants, 847 screened positive on MoCA (70.4% mild, 13.2% moderate) for cognitive impairment and were assessed further for other domains of ICMR-MUDRA toolbox. 5 key findings →
We studied the usefulness of measuring volumes of the hippocampus, amygdala and frontal lobes with coronal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in the diagnosis of early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
We studied whether Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) norms for detecting dementia in elderly outpatients vary according to educational attainment. 4 key findings →
Postmortem demonstration of increased expression of biologically active S100B in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its relation to progression of neuropathological changes across the cortical regions suggests involvement of this astrocytic cytokine in the pathophysiology of AD. 4 key findings →
This aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment in patients referred to a memory clinic, alone and in combination with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2014-07-25
Similar to Alzheimer's disease (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is characterized by a profound degeneration of cortically-projecting cholinergic neurons of the basal forebrain (BF) and associated depletion of cortical cholinergic activity. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·1990-03-01
The usefulness of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a screening test for identifying cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has been questioned because many patients who score above the suggested cutoff score of 24 exhibit severe focal or global cognitive deficits. 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.