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 1,026–1,050 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools(page 42 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 33 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·1989-03-01
To determine if impaired dichotic performance in patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type is due to the inability to divide attention or the inability to perceive degraded auditory stimuli, we measured performance on tasks of both dichotic and degraded monotic speech materials. 3 key findings →
The unprecedented rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent times is unparalleled in history.AI 1 seemingly possesses cognitive abilities that hitherto only humans could boast of -reason, an inimitable, embodied, and finite existence. 47Nonetheless, the ubiquitous abilities of AI can help to enhance treatment and care for PLWDs in 48 enabling early diagnosis, continuous monitoring and personalized support. 1 key finding →
Conventional dementia screening tools, whether paper tests or static artificial intelligence (AI) models, capture only a snapshot of cognition and need to be adminstered periodically. 5 key findings →
Participants reported routine screening for cognitive impairment only in the context of the Medicare annual wellness visit and generally avoided routine screening because of limited treatment options to support patients, such as poor access to geriatrics/neuropsychiatric services. 5 key findings →
This approach predicts clinical progression (2-year Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes change > 1) with an area under the curve of 0.836. 4 key findings →
The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the ADAS-cog were 0.91, 0.88 and 0.65 for the whole group, the AD and normal (i.e. non-demented) subjects respectively. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·ACM Computing Surveys·2025-08-28
Dementia is the waning of cognitive abilities, which is typically seen with the natural aging process and includes issues with memory, language, and problem-solving abilities. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Healthcare·2025-05-22
The proposed protocol for the CAREFIT programme represents an innovative and multidisciplinary initiative that leverages a digital platform to promote the well-being of informal caregivers of people with dementia. 3 key findings →
In last two decades the growing life expectancy has spiralled the prevalence of neurogenerative disorder such as Dementia among elderly population posing a significant challenge to mental health globally. 1 key finding →
The global increase in the elderly population, which is expected to reach 2.1 billion by 2050, has highlighted the need for reliable monitoring systems to assist elderly individuals, especially those with dementia. 1 key finding →
While this process allows machine learning models to make more precise and reliable diagnoses, systems developed on the basis of Dr. Roman Poznanski's DOT (Dynamic Optimization of Thought) theory offer a new method in the diagnosis of neurological diseases. 5 key findings →
Overall, AI has substantial potential to support more precise, person-centred care for older adults, but realising this promise will require multimorbidity-aware, transparent models, robust evaluation in diverse geriatric populations and governance frameworks that ensure fairness, privacy and meaningful human oversight. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia and represents a significant global health problem due to its profound impact on patients' quality of life and the heavy burden it places on health care. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-17
Body mass index (BMI), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related cardiometabolic features associate with Alzheimers disease (AD) risk, yet shared mechanisms remain poorly understood. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-24
AbstractO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are increasingly used for type 2 diabetes. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-21
IntroductionFrontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a devastating disease that commonly results in early onset dementia, yet its rarity and heterogeneity limit large-scale research and clinical trials. 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.