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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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 751–775 of 1,109 studies · tagged Digital Tools(page 31 of 45)· 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)
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.
Hearing loss affects close to 1.3 billion people and is a growing global health concern as the fourth leading contributor to years lived with disability. 1 The global economic cost associated with hearing loss is estimated at 750 billion United States dollars (US$) annually.2 However, hearing loss has limited public health support, especially in low-and middle-income countries, where incidence is high and resources often scarce and unequally distributed.
The system uses a collected dataset of 1928 records, taken from 11 HD patients and 11 healthy persons in Lithuania, to gather statistics about examinations and presents the results as medical evaluation with prediction on the state of health. 5 key findings →
Wearable devices have found numerous applications in healthcare ranging from physiological diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension and muscle disorders to neurocognitive disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other psychological diseases. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Glia·1993-11-01
Upon acute activation, microglia, the immuneffector cells of the brain parenchyma, express the amyloid precursor protein (APP) that is otherwise prominent in pathological structures related to Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →
We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →
The tests qualitatively and statistically associated to a cognitive decline are MMSE, FAB, BSTR, AM, and VSF, of which at least three were considered the most informative also by machine learning. 73% average accuracy was obtained in the diagnosis prediction on three subsets of original and external data. 3 key findings →
Until recently, accurate early detection of clinical symptoms associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) has been difficult. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Seminars in Neurology·2025-11-28
As the U.S. population ages, Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) cases are increasing, resulting in long wait times for specialist care. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-07-09
Dementia is a degenerative and chronic disorder, increasingly prevalent among older adults, posing significant challenges in providing appropriate care. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·JMIR Aging·2025-11-05
The Neural Network classifier achieved an accuracy of 91% with a 95% CI ranging from 0.79-0.97 and an AUC of 94%, on the test set after identifying the most significant features for AD prediction. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Sage Open Aging·2025-12-01
This study explored digital health literacy skills, self-efficacy in utilizing digital health resources, and self-efficacy in managing personal health among caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). 2 key findings →
IntroductionThe prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases has significantly increased, necessitating a deeper understanding of their symptoms, diagnostic processes, and prevention strategies. 2 key findings →
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The aggregation of α-synuclein is crucial to the development of Lewy body diseases, including Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. 1 key finding →
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 →
Artificial intelligence (AI) has stimulated extensive research in clinical neurology, but relatively few AI systems have meaningfully changed bedside decision-making. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·PloS one·2016-03-18
Virtual Reality (VR) has emerged as a promising tool in many domains of therapy and rehabilitation, and has recently attracted the attention of researchers and clinicians working with elderly people with MCI, Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. 3 key findings →
Prior research suggests that both exergaming and virtual reality (VR)-based training programs could improve executive functions in older adults. 3 key findings →
10 of the 1,102 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.