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 976–1,000 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools(page 40 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2011-12-01
There are growing numbers of studies using machine learning approaches to characterize patterns of anatomical difference discernible from neuroimaging data. 1 key finding →
Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) constitutes an important tool for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), which, in turn, allows the application of treatments that can be simpler and more likely to be effective. 2 key findings →
The present findings support a theory of FTD as a disorder of frontolimbic disconnection leading to unconstrained prefrontal connectivity. 5 key findings →
Neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), target specific and functionally connected neuronal networks, raising the possibility that neurodegeneration may spread through abnormal patterns of neural network activity. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Aging and disease·2015-03-10
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia in individuals over 65 years of age and is characterized by accumulation of beta-amyloid (Aβ) and tau. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2009-05-27
Structural and functional brain images are playing an important role in helping us understand the changes associated with neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Reduced coherence between central and temporal cortex is discussed in light of a neurological model of AD that hypothesizes reduced electrocortical efficiency and a breakdown of neural network communication to temporal lobes possibly resulting from temporal lobe atrophy. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2013-12-04
High levels of education, occupational complexity, and/or premorbid intelligence are associated with lower levels of cognitive impairment than would be expected from a given brain pathology. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neuropharmacology·2012-06-23
A condition of excess activity in the hippocampal formation is observed in the aging brain and in conditions that confer additional risk during aging for Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
This study explores whether nursing home residents with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) are affected differently by facility-level risk factors of ambulatory care-sensitive (ACS) conditions, a measure of timely access to medical care. 2 key findings →
This paper provides a comprehensive review of studies examining adherence and (or) persistence with dementia pharmacotherapy during the past decade, including a summary of the key patient-, drug-, system-, and provider-level factors associated with these measures. 2 key findings →
This study used administrative data from a large health care insurer in the southeast United States to describe the utilization pattern and health care outcomes of antipsychotic drug use in community-dwelling elders with dementia. 1 key finding →
In comparison with other Parkinsonian syndromes the patients were older and had an extremely low frequency of visual hallucinations compared with Parkinson's disease. 4 key findings →
Among the various disorders manifesting dementia, gait disturbance, and urinary incontinence in the elderly population, idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is becoming of great importance. 1 key finding →
The objective of this study was to assess the temporal relationship between changes in predominant motor symptoms and incident dementia in Parkinson's disease (PD). 4 key findings →
Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS) is a neurodegenerative disorder with core features of action tremor and cerebellar gait ataxia. 5 key findings →
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is characterized by cognitive and behavioral changes and, in a significant subset of patients, Parkinsonism. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2007-09-01
Twentieth-century hypotheses attributing a substantive role to aging in Parkinson disease (PD) pathogenesis have been countered by evidence from clinical, pathological, and biochemical investigations. 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.