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 1,076–1,100 of 1,308 studies of type cross-sectional study (page 44 of 53) · 27,380 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.

BackgroundSystemic inflammation has been implicated in cognitive aging and neurodegeneration; however, inflammatory biomarkers are expressed in coordinated patterns rather than as isolated markers. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 334 Evidence: moderate

A significant correlation was found between perceived cognitive decline and increased motivation to engage in dementia risk reduction behaviors (r = 0.44). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The combination of antiretroviral therapy (cART) and preventive measures has significantly enhanced the management of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

A significant association between increased caregiver burden and BPSD in patients with AD was demonstrated, which may be associated with decreased caregiver healthcare and social care-related QOL. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Quality of Life of Older Adults Living With Dementia and Caregiver Strain in Benin

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Value in Health Regional Issues 2025-02-26

A total of 114 older adults (mean age 73 ± 10 years, 51% female) and their primary caregivers (mean age 49 ± 16 years, 70% female) participated, of whom 73 were recruited from health facilities and 41 from rural communities. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114 Evidence: low

The prevalence of CF was 24.3%. Cerebrovascular disease (OR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.44-3.97) and peripheral arterial disease (OR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.03-2.95) were significant risk factors, while higher education (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.94) and later diabetes onset (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98) were protective. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

These findings suggest that circadian rhythm disruption as measured via 24-hour RAR is associated with plasma and imaging biomarkers of AD in DS. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 29 Evidence: low

These findings suggest that visual function plays a crucial role in the cognitive and functional abilities of patients with MCI. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The global aging population has led to a significant rise in dementia and cognitive decline, with Alzheimer's disease as the primary cause. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 510 Evidence: moderate

The Benson Complex Figure Test for the Differential Diagnosis of Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. NeuroSci 2026-03-20

The Benson Complex Figure Test (BCFT) is a neuropsychological tool designed to assess visuospatial construction and visual memory with lower complexity than traditional tests. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,428 Evidence: low

Compared to controls, the AD/VaD patient group had a significantly higher WML volume (p < .001), reduced global CBF (p < .001), greater brain atrophy, and worse ADAS-Cog scores (p < .001). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

WMH burden positively correlated to Neurofilament-Light (NfL) and pTau181. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 583 Evidence: low

Limited data suggest nursing home (NH) Alzheimer's special care units (ASCUs) may improve care and outcomes among residents with dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13,207 Evidence: low

Coverage and Prior Authorization Policies for Semaglutide and Tirzepatide in Medicare Part D Plans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-08-29

This cross-sectional study examines trends in coverage of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, semaglutide and tirzepatide, and prior authorization requirements among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

We demonstrated a moderate positive correlation between PDGFRβ and both total Tau and phosphorylated Tau 181 in cognitively normal individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Down syndrome (DS) is a complex genetic condition due to an additional copy of human chromosome 21, which results in the deregulation of many genes. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The authors tried to know specificity of aging in persons with Down syndrome (DS) from the aspect of electroencephalograph (EEG) frequency changes through the cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, in comparison with normal persons as well as those with mentally retardation except the Down syndrome (non-DS MR). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 265 Evidence: moderate

[95% CI] = 0.148 [0.077-0.219]; executive function, 0.138 [0.067-0.208]; episodic memory, 0.020 [-0.051 to 0.091]; working memory, 0.128 [0.059-0.197]; visuospatial processing, 0.094 [0.023-0.164]) outperformed area-level SES in detecting cognitive deficits, and demonstrated widespread associations with poorer performance across cognitive domains. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional 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 27,380 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