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 926–950 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools(page 38 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.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia worldwide and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, including stroke, systemic embolism, heart failure, and dementia. 1 key finding →
Overall, the application of ML to mental health has demonstrated a range of benefits across the areas of diagnosis, treatment and support, research, and clinical administration. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2016-02-23
The genetics dataset yielded two subtypes of AD characterized mainly by the presence/absence of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 genotype, but also involving differential presence of risk alleles of CD2AP, SPON1 and LOC39095 SNPs that were associated with differences in the respective patterns of brain atrophy, especially in the precuneus. 2 key findings →
The accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its early stage, i.e., mild cognitive impairment, is essential for timely treatment and possible delay of AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Palliative medicine·2017-04-21
We developed a comprehensive set of quality indicators of appropriate and inappropriate end-of-life care in people with Alzheimer's disease, cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, to be used in population-level research. 1 key finding →
The early motor manifestations of sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), while rarely documented, reflect failure of adaptive complex motor skills. 1 key finding →
Naodesheng (NDS) formula, which consists of Rhizoma Chuanxiong, Lobed Kudzuvine, Carthamus tinctorius, Radix Notoginseng, and Crataegus pinnatifida, is widely applied for the treatment of cardio/cerebrovascular ischemic diseases, ischemic stroke, and sequelae of cerebral hemorrhage, etc. At present, the studies on NDS formula for Alzheimer's disease (AD) only focus on single component of this prescription, and there is no report about the synergistic mechanism of the constituents in NDS formula for the potential treatment of dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Parkinson's disease·2011-02-07
Patients at late stage Parkinson's disease (PD) develop several motor and nonmotor complications, which dramatically impair their quality of life. 5 key findings →
The value and durability of this potential contribution, however, demands an improved discipline-wide knowledge base about the unique features associated with different dementia variants. 1 key finding →
Assessment by a speech therapist, staffing ratios, advance directives, fiscal considerations, and specialized dementia units are potentially modifiable factors in nursing homes that may influence the practice of tube feeding in advanced cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Frontiers in Dementia·2026-04-10
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding into dementia-related health and social care, with proposed applications ranging from early risk detection and monitoring to care coordination and service planning. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·JMIR Serious Games·2025-03-03
Significant differences in 64% of engagement-related behaviors were found between groups, notably in torso movements, voice modulation, facial expressions, and concentration. 5 key findings →
So far, we included 42 patients in our study, that were monitored for at least 7 consecutive days and nights, to form the largest database of its kind in the world. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Frontiers in Dementia·2025-02-04
Informed consent is a critical ethical requirement in research, ensuring the protection of participants' rights and promoting their wellbeing and autonomy. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·JMIR Aging·2025-09-11
The calibration models for photopic lux and correlated color temperature demonstrated strong accuracy, with an adjusted R² of 0.858 and 0.982, respectively, ensuring reliable sensor measurements. 5 key findings →
Dementia is a progressive condition that affects cognition, communication, mobility, and independence, posing growing challenges for individuals, caregivers, and healthcare systems. 5 key findings →
In the early stages of neurodegenerative disorders, individuals may exhibit a decline in language abilities that is difficult to quantify with standardized tests. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2019-08-26
The smart device system to monitor tremors and to recognize its phenotypes for better outcomes of deep brain stimulation, applications evaluating fine motor functions, AI integrated electroencephalogram learning to diagnose epilepsy and psychological non-epileptic seizure, predict outcome of seizure surgeries, recognize patterns of autonomic instability to prevent sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), identify the pattern of complex algorithm in neuroimaging classifying cognitive impairment, differentiating and classifying concussion phenotypes, smartwatches monitoring atrial fibrillation to prevent strokes, and prediction of prognosis in dementia are unique examples of experimental utilizations of AI in the field of neurology. 1 key finding →
Patterns of discourse--as reflected in the use of propositions, cohesion devices, and in judgments of coherence--in the speech of 6 well elderly and 6 patients with senile dementia of the Alzheimer type (SDAT) during topic-centered interviews were compared. 5 key findings →
Telemedicine can improve access to speech and language evaluation services which is relevant to both dementia and other neurological diseases of the elderly. 4 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.