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 801–825 of 1,328 studies of type cross-sectional study (page 33 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.

Trends in Home Health Care Among Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries With or Without Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-05-16

Among the 13 604 086 traditional Medicare beneficiaries included in the study (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [7.7] years; 60.4% women), 27.7% had a diagnosis of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The study population consisted of 16,981 individuals (mean age: 62.4, 51.6% female, 68.7% non-Hispanic White, 15.5% in rural areas). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16,981 Evidence: low

The national combined PAF for 11 modifiable risk factors was 39.6 % (95 % CI: 20.8-55.9). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 86,494 Evidence: low

Actigraphy accurately identifies different dementia etiologies and could serve as a supplement to diagnostic investigations in patients with suspected AD for differential diagnostic purposes. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Machine learning (ML) on structural MRI data shows high potential for classifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression, but the specific contribution of brain regions, demographics, and proteinopathy remains unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 568 Evidence: moderate

Elevated FSH and reduced LH may be associated with poorer cognition and an increased risk of AD-D in very old Chinese adults, particularly in males. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 509 Evidence: moderate

A total of 43,160 participants were included (mean [standard deviation] age, 64.2 [7.7] years, 53.1 % female). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 43,160 Evidence: moderate

MASLD was significantly associated with smaller volumes of total grey matter and subcortical grey matter (p < 0.05) and reduced Alzheimer's disease (AD)-signature cortical thickness (multivariable-adjusted β = -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.07, -0.01). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 29,195 Evidence: low

Our findings highlight the altered phases of swallowing in patients with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 158 Evidence: low

Brain deposition of transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is a feature of neurodegenerative syndromes. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,058 Evidence: moderate

Clinical Dementia Rating-Global scores (1.44 ± 0.65 versus 0.24 ± 0.25; P < 0.0001) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores (4.88 ± 4.21 versus 0.20 ± 0.50; P < 0.0001) were higher than controls. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate

White matter hyperintensity (WMH), indicative of cerebral small vessel disease, has emerged as a potential biomarker for cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 158 Evidence: low

As evidence supporting the robustness of blood-based biomarker (BBM) testing for Alzheimer disease (AD) continues to emerge, understanding the perceptions, drivers, and barriers to the adoption of these tests among primary care physicians (PCPs) in the United States is crucial for improving patient outcomes and advancing clinical management of AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 603 Evidence: low

In this cross-sectional study of the Medicare population with acute and postacute care use, beneficiaries with ADRD had increasing enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program, proportional to the growth in overall enrollment, but their disenrollment from Medicare Advantage in the following year remained higher compared with beneficiaries without ADRD. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer disease (AD) risk differs across ancestral populations, yet most genetic studies have focused on non-Hispanic White (NHW) cohorts. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 751 Evidence: early

The results demonstrate that, although the number of biomarkers has rapidly expanded, many are interrelated and few strongly predict clinical outcomes. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Brain volume changes in CADASIL: a serial MRI study in pure subcortical ischemic vascular disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2006-05-01

The NBV significantly correlated with all clinical scores (Rankin, NIH Stroke Scale, Barthel, structured interview for the diagnosis of Alzheimer dementia and multi-infarct dementia, Mattis dementia rating scale) at both time points independently of age and sex. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Impaired everyday function is a diagnostic criterion for dementia, and a determinant of healthcare utilization and caregiver burden. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Selenium level and cognitive function in rural elderly Chinese

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. American journal of epidemiology 2007-01-31

Selenium is a trace element associated with antioxidant activity and is considered to be a protective agent against free radicals through enhanced enzyme activity. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Hypertension prevalence was higher in urban (range 52.6-79.8%) than rural sites (range 42.6-56.9%), and lower in men than women [pooled prevalence ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-0.93]. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 14 Evidence: low

↑ 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