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
28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 976–1,000 of 1,171 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment(page 40 of 47)· 28,980 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; 14,457 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.
The Real-World Implementation, Deployment, and Validation of Early Detection Tools and Lifestyle Enhancement (AD-RIDDLE) project, recently launched with the support of the EU Innovative Health Initiative (IHI) public-private partnership and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), aims to develop, test, and deploy a modular toolbox platform that can reduce existing barriers to the timely detection, and therapeutic approaches in Alzheimer's disease (AD), thus accelerating AD innovation. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·BMJ open·2019-03-23
Recent failures of potential novel therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have prompted a drive towards clinical studies in prodromal or preclinical states. 5 key findings →
The digitalized complex figure test evaluated copying performance quantitatively and further elucidated the patients' ongoing process during copying. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neuropsychology·2023-11-16
Multiday BRANCH is a feasible, reliable, and valid cognitive measure that may be useful for identifying subtle changes in learning and memory processes in older adults. 1 key finding →
The One Card Learning Test (OCL80) from the Cogstate Brief Battery-a digital cognitive test used both in-person and remotely in clinical trials and in healthcare contexts to inform health decisions-has shown high sensitivity to changes in memory in early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
The AD group performed significantly lower on the associative learning (p = 0.01) and associative memory assessments (p = 0.002), than the HC and AR groups. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive, multifactorial, chronic, neurodegenerative disease with high prevalence and limited therapeutic options, making it a global health crisis. 5 key findings →
Exploratory factor analysis revealed the orientation/spatial cognitive function (orientation and spatial cognition) and attention/executive function (attention, memory, and execution) factors. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Nanoscale·2021-01-21
Herein, combined with a pervasive smartphone installed with a color recognition app, dual-responsive CDs@Eu/GMP ICPs were designed as a red-to-blue paper-based colorimetric sensor for the point-of-use analysis of cerebral acetylcholinesterase (AChE) upon Cd2+ exposure. 5 key findings →
In regards to policy-making decisions and resource allocation, the success of making technology more accessible to the marginalized older population should not be measured solely on the outcome of avoiding acute care services; its benefits should rather be assessed with functional health as the focus of intervention, including measures of psychophysical well-being and life satisfaction.9 Higher-end immersive technologies could be installed as a private expense in a patient's room; they could also be made available in common recreational areas within a leisure and/or fitness room, provided by the LTC facility through support of government subsidies and incentives aimed at promoting health of its aging population. 5 key findings →
Hearing loss affects close to 1.3 billion people and is a growing global health concern as the fourth leading contributor to years lived with disability. 1 The global economic cost associated with hearing loss is estimated at 750 billion United States dollars (US$) annually.2 However, hearing loss has limited public health support, especially in low-and middle-income countries, where incidence is high and resources often scarce and unequally distributed.
The system uses a collected dataset of 1928 records, taken from 11 HD patients and 11 healthy persons in Lithuania, to gather statistics about examinations and presents the results as medical evaluation with prediction on the state of health. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Dementia·2018-04-09
Family carers encounter several challenges related to caring for people with dementia, and they need support in managing care recipients’ health needs. 5 key findings →
These findings suggest that WMH severity was related to cognitive improvement induced by a CCS program and highlight the importance of considering WMH in interventional studies on subjects with MCI. 4 key findings →
The current neuropsychiatric nosological categories underlie pragmatic treatment choice, regulation and clinical research but does not encompass biological rationale. 5 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%),
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.
1,038 records (3.6% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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.