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 526–550 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools(page 22 of 44)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
What “Digital health tools” covers
Digital health tools — Apps, wearables, online tests and other technology used to detect, monitor or support people with dementia.
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.
This study aimed to use peripheral plasma d-glutamate levels to differentiate patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) from healthy individuals and to evaluate its prediction ability using machine learning. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Frontiers in Medicine·2025-07-15
The early and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia remains a critical challenge, particularly with traditional machine learning models which often fail to provide transparency in their predictions, reducing user confidence and treatment effectiveness. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·BMC neuroscience·2009-08-21
With decreasing local and global connectivity parameters, the large-scale functional brain network organization in AD deviates from the optimal 'small-world' network structure towards a more 'random' type. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Family medicine·2002-07-01
Utilization and costs for patients with AD were higher compared to controls and were substantially higher for patients with both AD and co-morbid diseases commonly targeted for disease management. 5 key findings →
The authors identified several factors, including receipt of mechanical ventilation, which were significantly associated with increased long-term mortality for survivors of severe sepsis. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Physical therapy·2011-05-26
Physical performance speed was associated with executive function after adjusting for age, sex, and age-related factors in sedentary older adults with aMCI. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·PubMed Central·1991-01-01
The coexistence of cerebrovascular disease leading to deep white matter infarction and normal-pressure hydrocephalus has been noted previously in clinical studies, as both diseases can present with the triad of gait disturbance, dementia, and incontinence. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2009-06-06
While sarcasm can be conveyed solely through contextual cues such as counterfactual or echoic statements, face-to-face sarcastic speech may be characterized by specific paralinguistic features that alert the listener to interpret the utterance as ironic or critical, even in the absence of contextual information. 2 key findings →
The human anterior insula is anatomically and functionally heterogeneous, containing key nodes within distributed speech-language and viscero-autonomic/social-emotional networks. 5 key findings →
Recent findings Corticobasal degeneration and PSP are neurodegenerative diseases characterized by neuronal loss and gliosis in cardinal brain regions, as well as the abnormal deposition of the microtubule associated protein tau in cell bodies and cell processes. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1997-02-01
Hereditary frontotemporal dementia (HFTD) is a rare autosomal dominant form of presenile dementia characterized by behavioral changes and reduced speech. 2 key findings →
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.