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 951–975 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools(page 39 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.
Ever since Kiloh (1961)[2] coined the term pseudo-dementia, it has been used a little loosely for describing the cognitive deficits in depression, especially, which is found in old age. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Brain and language·1984-09-01
Twenty-two subjects with presumed senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type (SDAT), twenty-two with dementia other than SDAT, twenty with aphasia, and seventeen healthy controls over 50 years of age were examined for intrusions and perseverations. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·BMJ Open Quality·2025-09-01
We used 1387 safety event reports for model development, 989 (71.3%) reports related to situational factors and 119 (8.6%) reports related to active failures. 5 key findings →
The CatBoost-based risk model achieved an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.814 (<70 years) and 0.892 (<65 years). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Digital Health·2025-11-01
Three themes identified include (a) LOVOT's role in supporting engagement and stimulating conversation, (b) the irreplaceability of human touch and emotional nuances, and (c) concerns about ownership and equitable resource allocation. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Tomography·2025-12-26
Random Forest achieves the highest accuracy of 97% on clinical data, while CNN achieves the best overall performance of 94% in MRI-based staging. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Diagnostics·2025-01-17
Utilizing clinical data, the highest ROC AUC scores attained were 0.989, 0.927, and 0.907 for the identification of the CN, MCI, and dementia stages, respectively. 5 key findings →
Accurate and reproducible electroencephalography (EEG)-based classification of dementia remains a key challenge in computational neurodiagnostics. 4 key findings →
Lewy body dementias (LBD), comprising dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Parkinson’s disease dementia (PDD), are defined by misfolded α-synuclein aggregation. 1 key finding →
In this paper, we develop a method based on support vector machines (SVMs) that starting from the protein sequence information can predict whether a new phenotype derived from a nsSNP can be related to a genetic disease in humans. 1 key finding →
Many secretory proteins and peptides are synthesized as inactive precursors that in addition to signal peptide cleavage undergo post-translational processing to become biologically active polypeptides. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Molecular immunology·2011-05-04
The brain is considered to be an immune privileged site, because the blood-brain barrier limits entry of blood borne cells and proteins into the central nervous system (CNS). 3 key findings →
Age-related cognitive changes often include difficulties in retrieving memories, particularly those that rely on personal experiences within their temporal and spatial contexts (i.e., episodic memories). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Lab on a chip·2015-01-01
There has been a growing need for in vitro models of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease that would enable a better understanding of etiology and faster development of treatment strategies. 1 key finding →
The accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is essential for patient care and will be increasingly important as disease modifying agents become available, early in the course of the disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2012-10-04
Neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, are associated with changes in multiple neuroimaging and biological measures. 2 key findings →
Normal aging and mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) are associated with declines in navigational skills, including allocentric and egocentric representations, cognitive mapping, landmark processing, and spatial memory. 3 key findings →
Recently, there have been great interests for computer-aided diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its prodromal stage, mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neuropsychologia·2009-06-02
Recent neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that both remembering the past and simulating the future activate a core neural network including the medial temporal lobes. 1 key finding →
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.