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 1–16 of 16 studies in The Clinical Neuropsychologist · 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.

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.

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.

[Formula: see text]Practice effects and longitudinal cognitive change in clinically normal older adults differ by Alzheimer imaging biomarker status

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Clinical neuropsychologist 2016-10-11

Amyloidosis in the absence of neurodegeneration did not have an adverse impact on practice effects or the 30-month cognitive trajectories. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Longitudinal changes in memory and executive functioning are associated with longitudinal change in instrumental activities of daily living in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. The Clinical neuropsychologist 2008-09-23

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

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

Mayo Normative Studies: Regression-based normative data for remote self-administration of the Stricker Learning Span, Symbols Test, and Mayo Test Drive Screening Battery Composite and validation in individuals with mild cognitive impairment and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2025-03-11

No model terms met the a priori cut-off beyond the base model, including device type, response input source (e.g. mouse, etc.), or session interference. 5 key findings →

Participants: 167 Evidence: low

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

How Do Scores on the ADAS-Cog, MMSE, and CDR-SOB Correspond?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. The Clinical neuropsychologist 2015-11-30

Clinicians and researchers who measure cognitive dysfunction often use the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale--Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), or the Clinical Dementia Rating scale (CDR-SOB). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,709 Evidence: low

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

Functional ability is associated with higher adherence to behavioral interventions in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. The Clinical neuropsychologist 2019-10-13

Two-hundred and thirty-seven participants completed the 6-month post-intervention follow-up measures, 228 participants completed the 12-month measures, and 218 participants completed the 18-month measures. 5 key findings →

Participants: 272 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Neuropsychological performance in advanced age: influences of demographic factors and Apolipoprotein E: findings from the Cache County Memory Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Clinical neuropsychologist 2008-06-10

The Cache County Study of Memory in Aging (CCMS) is an epidemiological study of Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive disorders, and aging in a population of exceptionally long-lived individuals (7th to 11th decade). 1 key finding →

Participants: 507 Evidence: low

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

Cognitive dispersion is associated with white matter hyperintensities in amyloid positive older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2025-10-25

Amyloid status moderated associations between IIV-dispersion and WMH, such that higher IIV-dispersion was associated with greater WMH in Aß+ individuals whether WMH was examined as a continuous (B = 0.30, ß = 0.13, p = .006) or a dichotomous variable based on quartiles (odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, p < .001). 4 key findings →

Participants: 819 Evidence: low

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

Performance validity testing in neuropsychology: a clinical guide, critical review, and update on a rapidly evolving literature

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. The Clinical neuropsychologist 2017-11-28

PVTs provide valuable information regarding response bias and, under the right circumstances, can provide excellent evidence of response bias. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Differentiating patients with dementia from patients with depression and healthy controls using the Cognitive Functions Dementia (CFD) test set and machine learning

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2025-06-03

Using raw data from the CFD and the GLMnet algorithm, we could accurately differentiate between DEM vs. HC with accuracies ranging up to 94.0%. 4 key findings →

Participants: 407 Evidence: low

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

↑ 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