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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 33 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment published 2017 (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.

Other subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.

Efficacy of the Ubiquitous Spaced Retrieval-based Memory Advancement and Rehabilitation Training (USMART) program among patients with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled crossover trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2017-06-06

The 4-week USMART modestly improved information retrieval in older people with MCI, and was well accepted with minimal technical support. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Design and rationale of the EBBINGHAUS trial: A phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to assess the effect of evolocumab on cognitive function in patients with clinically evident cardiovascular disease and receiving statin background lipid-lowering therapy-A cognitive study of patients enrolled in the FOURIER trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Clinical cardiology 2017-02-16

Some observational studies raised concern that statins may cause memory impairment, leading to a US Food and Drug Administration warning. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The impact of individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (iCST) on cognition, quality of life, caregiver health, and family relationships in dementia: A randomised controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2017-03-28

Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is a well-established group psychosocial intervention for people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

Insulin Resistance and Future Cognitive Performance and Cognitive Decline in Elderly Patients with Cardiovascular Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2017-01-01

IR is related to subsequent poorer cognitive performance and greater cognitive decline among patients with cardiovascular disease with and without diabetes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 558 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Prediction of cognition in Parkinson's disease with a clinical-genetic score: a longitudinal analysis of nine cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2017-06-16

Cognitive decline is a debilitating manifestation of disease progression in Parkinson's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,200 Evidence: moderate

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

Blood cholesterol in late-life and cognitive decline: a longitudinal study of the Chinese elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Molecular neurodegeneration 2017-03-07

We thus examined whether higher blood cholesterol concentrations were associated with faster cognitive decline in a community-based longitudinal study of Chinese elderly. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 90 Evidence: moderate

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

Physical Frailty, Cognitive Impairment, and the Risk of Neurocognitive Disorder in the Singapore Longitudinal Ageing Studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2017-03-01

The independent and combined effects of physical and cognitive domains of frailty in predicting the development of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia are not firmly established. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

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

Computerized cognitive training for older diabetic adults at risk of dementia: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2017-11-10

This pilot study is the first trial evaluating the potential benefits of home-based tailored and adaptive CCT in relation to cognitive and disease self-management in older diabetic adults. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The midlife cognitive profiles of adults at high risk of late-onset Alzheimer's disease: The PREVENT study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2017-03-30

Middle-aged adults at risk of dementia show evidence of poorer cognitive performance, principally in visuospatial functions. 1 key finding →

Participants: 210 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Cognitive Testing in People at Increased Risk of Dementia Using a Smartphone App: The iVitality Proof-of-Principle Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2017-05-25

Repeated smartphone-assisted cognitive testing is feasible with reasonable adherence and moderate relative validity for the Stroop and the Trail Making tests compared with conventional neuropsychological tests. 3 key findings →

Participants: 151 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Optical Coherence Tomography Reveals Retinal Neuroaxonal Thinning in Frontotemporal Dementia as in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2017-01-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are leading causes of cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Significant Improvement in Cognition in Mild to Moderately Severe Dementia Cases Treated with Transcranial Plus Intranasal Photobiomodulation: Case Series Report

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Photomedicine and laser surgery 2017-02-10

This study investigated whether patients with mild to moderately severe dementia or possible Alzheimer's disease (AD) with Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) Baseline scores of 10-24 would improve when treated with near-infrared photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Computerized Cognitive Testing for Use in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate C3 Batteries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2017-01-01

Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Diagnostic Value of a Tablet-Based Drawing Task for Discrimination of Patients in the Early Course of Alzheimer's Disease from Healthy Individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2017-01-01

There is a considerable delay in the diagnosis of dementia, which may reduce the effectiveness of available treatments. 1 key finding →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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