alzhub.org
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.

Research

28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1,026–1,050 of 1,171 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment (page 42 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)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

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.

Conceptualization of an evidence-based smartphone innovation for caregivers and persons living with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine 2016-09-01

Recent statistics released by Alzheimer's Disease International has highlighted how prevalent dementia will become in the next couple of years. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Altered expression of synaptic proteins occurs early during progression of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Neurology 2001-01-01

The expression levels of three synaptic proteins (synaptophysin, synaptotagmin, and growth-associated protein 43 [GAP43]) in AD cases clinically classified by Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score were analyzed. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Effect of disease related biases on the subjective assessment of social functioning in Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of psychiatric research 2020-11-09

Here we show that the observed overestimation of WHODAS social functioning scores in AD and SZ patients is partly driven by disease-related biases such as cognitive impairments and negative symptoms, respectively. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Examining the effects of computerised cognitive training on levels of executive function in adults with Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR 2019-05-06

This study showed that, while it has not been previously an area of focus, individuals with DS can complete a computerised cognitive training programme. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Laptop-Administered NIH Toolbox and Cogstate Brief Battery in Community-Dwelling Black Adults: Unexpected Pattern of Cognitive Performance between MCI and Healthy Controls

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS 2021-03-23

Contrary to expectation, NIH Toolbox crystallized abilities appeared preferentially sensitive to diagnostic group differences. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Comparative Effects of Physical Exercise and Other Behavioral Interventions on Functional Status Outcomes in Mild Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS 2021-07-26

Overall, these results add to the growing literature that physical exercise can play a significant and lasting role in modifying outcomes in a host of medical conditions, including neurodegenerative diseases. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Assistive technologies that support social interaction in long-term care homes: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. JBI evidence synthesis 2021-10-01

Twenty-five articles were included in this review, with comparable numbers of quantitative (n = 6), qualitative (n = 9), and mixed methods (n = 7) studies, with the remaining articles employing non-empirical designs (n = 3). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Challenges of using a Fitbit smart wearable among people with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2023-03-01

When designing a study using smart wearables such as a Fitbit among people with dementia, consideration should be given to the following: the possible burden on caregivers supporting the use of the device; a lack of familiarity with this technology in the target population; dealing with missing data, and the involvement of the researcher in setting up and supporting use of the device. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Neurotechnology and AI Approach for Early Dementia Onset Biomarker from EEG in Emotional Stimulus Evaluation Task

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference 2021-11-01

We present an efficient utilization of a machine learning (ML) method concentrating on the 'AI for social good' application. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Targeting HIV-Related Neurocognitive Impairments with Cognitive Training Strategies: Insights from the Cognitive Aging Literature

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Current topics in behavioral neurosciences 2021-01-01

Approximately 50% of older adults with HIV meet the Frascati diagnostic criteria of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) which can interfere with everyday function such as medication adherence, employment, and driving ability, thus reducing quality of life. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Older Adult Mild Cognitive Impairment Prediction from Multiscale Entropy EEG Patterns in Reminiscent Interior Image Working Memory Paradigm

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference 2021-11-01

We discuss the practical employment of a machine learning (ML) technique within AI for a social good application. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

[Neuropsychological tests of simple application for diagnosing dementia]

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria 1994-12-01

Thirty patients with dementia defined by DSM-III-R criteria (Alzheimer's disease (22), vascular dementia (3), Parkinson's disease, frontal lobe dementia, possible diffuse Lewy body dementia, normal pressure hydrocephalus and uncertain diagnosis), with scores below 24 points in the Mini-Mental Status Examination and more than 4 years of education were submitted to a neuropsychological evaluation. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed