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 676–700 of 1,328 studies of type cross-sectional study (page 28 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.

A total of 798 patients (154 with probable DLB and 644 with AD) were included, and the mean age was 81.4 years (SD 6.33). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 798 Evidence: moderate

In linear mixed models, vascular endothelial growth factor was significantly associated with incident DWI-positive lesions over 1 year. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate

We conclude that eight-week MBI for older adults are feasible, but results on cognitive improvement are inconclusive due a limited number of studies, small sample sizes, and a high risk of bias. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

Whilst nursing home managers recognise the potential benefits of advance care planning, barriers and challenges create a reluctance to facilitate. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 178 Evidence: low

The purpose of this retrospective, cross-sectional study was to determine the prevalence of advance care planning (ACP) among older people presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) from the community or a residential aged care facility. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 40 Evidence: low

A high level of drug utilization, influenced by the characteristics of residents and the institution, was observed in Belgian nursing homes. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,510 Evidence: low

People continue to receive disease-focused therapies at the end of life rather than therapies exclusively for palliation of symptoms, suggesting that treatments may vary according to the person's primary diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,623 Evidence: low

Palliative care for advanced dementia: Knowledge and attitudes of long-term care staff

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of clinical nursing 2017-12-13

This study indicates the need to provide nurses and nursing assistants with more information about palliative care practice for people with advanced dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 125 Evidence: low

Patients with chronic schizophrenia displayed bilateral hippocampal volume reduction. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 89 Evidence: moderate

Hippocampal volumetric and morphometric studies in frontal and temporal lobe epilepsy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 1992-08-01

The most common temporal lobe pathology is Ammons Horn sclerosis (AHS), and several different imaging techniques have been utilized to detect this with varying success. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 20 Evidence: low

ECT-induced neuroplasticity in the hippocampus and amygdala relates to improved clinical response and is pronounced in regions with prominent connections to ventromedial prefrontal cortex and other limbic structures. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 43 Evidence: moderate

Accumulating evidence implicates small vessel cerebrovascular disease, visualized as white matter hyperintensities (WMH) on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, in the pathogenesis and diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate

Power analyses for voxels showing maximal decline over the 1-year period in regional cerebral glucose metabolism (mg/100 g per minute) were computed to estimate the sample sizes needed to detect a significant treatment response in a 1-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment study. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

Cost-effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 1999-04-01

The results of the cost-effectiveness model presented here suggest that donepezil may be cost-effective but additional controlled data on long-term drug efficacy are needed. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

Discrepancies in diagnostic biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease (AD) may arise from racial disparities, risk factors, or lifestyle differences. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

NIH Conferences21 June 2005National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Management of Menopause-Related SymptomsFREENIH State-of-the-Science Panel*NIH State-of-the-Science Panel*Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_1-200506210-00117 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus and state-of-the-science statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of 1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session, 3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session, and 4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and the morning of the third. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

This German study challenged the common assumption that keeping a person with dementia at home is always cheaper than nursing home care. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

Plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau)181, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), and amyloid beta ratio (Aβ42/40) may have diagnostic and prognostic value in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,298 Evidence: moderate

These findings emphasize the necessity of tailoring mAb trials for DS, considering age-related AD characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Validation of olfactory deficit as a biomarker of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology. Clinical practice 2017-02-01

Olfactory identification deficit is a useful screening tool for AD-related amnestic disorder, with sensitivity and specificity comparable to other established biomarkers, with benefits such as ease of administration and low cost. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 96 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