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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 776–800 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools(page 32 of 44)· 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)
From OpenAlex; 13,259 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2007-10-01
An 82-year-old man presented with progressive changes in personality, social conduct, and executive function with preservation of memory, deteriorating from baseline to requiring acute hospitalization within 6 months. 1 key finding →
This study has shown that physical restraints are used frequently in geriatric care in Sweden and that cognitive and physical impairments relate very closely to the use of physical restraints. 2 key findings →
Probands (n = 3607) living in long-term care institutions in the county of Västerbotten were assessed to estimate whether the prevalence of dementia in different types of institutions had changed since a similar survey was made 7 years before. 5 key findings →
Allostasis designates processes of bodily adaptation to stressful challenges, whereas allostatic load means the costs of wear and tear to the body as a consequence of inefficient allostasis. 2 key findings →
EDDA achieved an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.85 in the test set and 0.93 in the validation set. 5 key findings →
Recent advances in dementia research have expanded our understanding of modifiable risk factors, with air pollution being a well-established contributor. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Human Brain Mapping·2026-02-01
Artificial intelligence and neuroimaging enable accurate dementia prediction but often involve 'black box' models that can be difficult to trust. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·BMC Digital Health·2025-08-28
= 1), and three caregivers. Five key themes were identified, including ease of use, wearability, usefulness, transparency, and behavioral intention. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·JMIR Aging·2025-07-15
The Extra Trees model achieved up to 99% accuracy for personalized wristband data, while the multilayer perceptron model performed best in general models with 98% accuracy. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·JMIR Aging·2025-09-23
The presented results suggest the suitability of ecological handwriting analysis for the all-around monitoring of MCI, from early screening to disease progression evaluation. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Brain Communications·2025-01-01
HEK293, Neuro2a and SH-SY5Y expressing increased levels of α-synuclein were treated with sonicated α-synuclein pre-formed fibrils, to model seeded aggregation. 1 key finding →
IRMA can be used to learn and disregard center-specific information in features extracted from brain $$^{18}$$ 18 F-FDG PET scans, while retaining disease-specific information. 2 key findings →
It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. 2 key findings →
Post-translational modifications (PTMs) on tau have long been recognized as affecting protein function and contributing to neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →
Structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) has been widely used for computer-aided diagnosis of neurodegenerative disorders, e.g., Alzheimer's disease (AD), due to its sensitivity to morphological changes caused by brain atrophy. 5 key findings →
Brain functional imaging data, especially functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, have been employed to reflect functional integration of the brain. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Journal of stroke·2018-09-30
Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) has a crucial role in lacunar stroke and brain hemorrhages and is a leading cause of cognitive decline and functional loss in elderly patients. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2019-11-04
The level of prediction error in the brain age estimation frameworks is associated with the authenticity of statistical inference on the basis of regression models. 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 27,780 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.