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 1–25 of 30 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment published 2005 (page 1 of 2) · 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.

Benefits of rivastigmine on attention in dementia associated with Parkinson disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. Neurology 2005-11-01

In a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of rivastigmine, 487 patients with dementia associated with Parkinson disease underwent assessment of attention on the Cognitive Drug Research computerized cognitive assessment system before dosing and 16 and 24 weeks later. 2 key findings →

Participants: 487 Evidence: high

We examined whether cognitive function at baseline affected cognitive and cardiovascular outcomes in the Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE), a blood pressure (BP)-lowering intervention trial. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 2,070 Evidence: low

This randomized, observer-blind, controlled trial examined the efficacy and safety of the traditional Chinese herbal medicine Yi-Gan San (YGS, Yokukan-San in Japanese) in the improvement of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and activities of daily living (ADL). 4 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: high

The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is recommended to test for cognitive impairment and to monitor medication response. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 7,073 Evidence: high

Motor signs predict poor outcomes in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2005-05-01

A total of 533 patients with AD at early stages (mean Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 21/30 at entry) were recruited and followed semiannually for up to 13.1 years (mean 3) in five University-based AD centers in the United States and European Union. 4 key findings →

Participants: 533 Evidence: moderate

Quality of life in dementia--a one-year follow-up study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2005-03-01

Quality of life (QoL) is becoming an increasingly used outcome measure in both clinical practice and research but little is known about QoL in dementia and how it may change over time. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 60 Evidence: moderate

While the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was originally developed to screen for dementia and delirium, many neurologists use this measure as a screening instrument for 'cognitive impairment' in hospitalized stroke patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

From a prospective Memory Clinic cohort including consecutively referred patients, age 60 years or above, and with MMSE score 20 or above, 36 patients with AD and 30 with MCI were included in this study. 4 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate

The validity of a new computerised battery called CogState was determined in 60 individuals with advanced human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) infection from which eleven were assessed as AIDS dementia complex (ADC) stage 1 or 2. 1 key finding →

Participants: 60 Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Participants: 120 Evidence: low

The burden perceived by caregivers of patients with dementia is a fundamental prognostic aspect in the history of the disease. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Neuropsychiatric symptoms seen in Alzheimer's disease (AD) are not simply a consequence of neurodegeneration, but probably result from differential neurotransmitter alterations, which some patients are more at risk of than others. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The increased tendency to fall asleep during the daytime together with increased wakefulness during the night has been demonstrated in patients with advanced Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

↑ 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