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 826–850 of 881 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment (page 34 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.

New technologies have considerable potential to support people with semantic dementia-a form of progressive aphasia-in their everyday lives, but evidence is still sparse. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Twenty-seven patients with Alzheimer-type dementia (ATD) were treated with bright light therapy in the morning for four consecutive weeks. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our studies showed that DC and DRs in VD and AD groups were significantly lower than those in controls, while AC values were significantly higher. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The observation group had significantly lower Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) scores than the control group (both P<0.001). 5 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

DNA methylation, mRNA and protein levels, and cognitive performance using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clock Drawing Test (CDT). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study (RCT) investigated the impact of Expressive Therapies Continuum (ETC)-based art therapy on cognitive function and quality of life among older adults with dementia living in a complex care setting. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

DLB is characterized by DMN and visual network dysfunction, disrupted local neural activity, and impaired global network integration. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results of this study identified important relationships between cognitive features in the ADAS-Cog and provide a clear example of the value of data-driven machine learning approaches in the identification of markers that indicate disease progression in dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Surprisingly, demographic normalisation worsened rather than improved diagnostic accuracy for detecting MCI with both MoCA and MMSE, reducing their effectiveness as diagnostic tools and confirming our hypothesis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Object On the basis of determining the clinical effect of moxibustion on vascular dementia (VD), this study explored the central mechanism of moxibustion on VD through fMRI. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Compared with conventional activities, GDRT resulted in significantly greater reductions in overall BPSD (r = 0.56, p = .001) and caregiver burden (r = 0.44, p = .011). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

MoCA scores showed significant positive correlations with cognitive-related cerebellar regions, particularly the left Crus I lobule (r = 0.40, p = 0.02) and total Crus I volume (r = 0.36, p = 0.04). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Community-Based Participatory Research on Art Engagement for People with Dementia in Japan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

These findings suggest that participatory art, when integrated into community activities, can be a valuable resource for people with dementia and MCI, fostering social participation and self-expression. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Wprowadzenie Obniżenie poziomu funkcjonowania poznawczego to częsty problem osób w wieku podeszłym, zwłaszcza kobiet, a jednym z czynników ryzyka jest brak aktywności fizycznej. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Korean version of mini mental status examination for dementia screening and its' short form

⚠ Retracted — do not rely on it alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Psychiatry investigation 2010-04-06

We developed a Korean version of Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) optimized for screening dementia (MMSE-DS) and its' short form (SMMSE-DS). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,555 Evidence: low

↑ 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