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 376–400 of 1,328 studies of type cross-sectional study (page 16 of 54) · 27,780 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)

This list as a page: Cross-sectional study in the library →

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

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.

CSF synaptic biomarkers increase in the early preclinical stages of the Alzheimer continuum even when a low burden of Aβ pathology is present, and they differ in their association with age, sex, APOE ε4 , and markers of neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Data-driven WMH spatial patterns reflect discrete underlying etiologies including arteriolosclerosis, CAA, AD, and normal aging. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

These findings suggest EPVS burden to be a potential marker of both CSVD and AD-related BBM pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 979 Evidence: moderate

Although there were no significant differences among the 3 groups of participants in their clinical ratings, neuropsychological test scores, hippocampal volumes (P = .60), or hippocampal glucose metabolism measurements (P = .12), there were significant group differences in their posterior cingulate glucose metabolism measurements (P = .001). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 31 Evidence: low

Cross-sectional associations support the view that enhancing cognitive reserve may benefit cognition, and maintenance of cognitive health may be supported by a healthy and active lifestyle, in later life. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Definition and description of schizophrenia in the DSM-5

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Schizophrenia research 2013-06-22

Although dementia praecox or schizophrenia has been considered a unique disease for over a century, its definitions and boundaries have changed over this period and its etiology and pathophysiology remain elusive. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

In general, the MoCA-BJ is an acceptable tool for MCI screening in both urban and rural regions of Beijing. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 115 Evidence: low

The p-tau proteins in CSF come closest to fulfilling the criteria of a biological marker of AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 206 Evidence: low

Impaired default network functional connectivity in autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2013-07-24

These findings suggest that DMN fcMRI may prove useful as a biomarker across a wide spectrum of disease, and support the feasibility of DMN fcMRI as a secondary endpoint in upcoming multicenter clinical trials in Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Using established clinical diagnostic standards for dementia the overall rate on routine outpatient neurological care is 28.6%, but using more sensitive neuropsychological measures, rates for cognitive impairment might be up to 2-fold higher. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 315 Evidence: low

Non-linear associations between features of land use and cognitive impairment were confirmed in this new cohort of older people in England. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Our goal was to determine the patient and caregiver characteristics associated with the reduction of employment hours in caregivers of frail elders. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,806 Evidence: low

The number of older adults with dementia in the US and globally is projected to increase as a result of population aging and growth. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16 Evidence: low

Prevalence of mental disorders in China: a cross-sectional epidemiological study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The lancet. Psychiatry 2019-02-18

Anxiety disorders were the most common class of disorders both in the 12 months before the interview (weighted prevalence 5·0%, 4·2-5·8) and in lifetime (7·6%, 6·3-8·8). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Parkinson's disease is a common neurodegenerative disorder primarily characterized by rigidity, tremor and bradykinesia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26 Evidence: low

Disease-modifying drug use necessitates better Alzheimer disease (AD) detection. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Anaemia increases the risk of dementia in cognitively intact elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2006-02-01

Although cross-sectional studies found an association between anaemia and dementia, longitudinal studies provided contradictory results. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,139 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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