Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 287 studies in Cognitive tests and assessment · tagged Digital Tools (page 1 of 12) · 29,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 287 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Cognitive tests and assessment” covers

Cognitive tests and assessment — Memory and thinking tests, screening tools and rating scales: how well they measure what they claim to.

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.

Between March 1, 2016, and March 12, 2020, 383 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 383 Evidence: high

We included 49 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 14 to 91,948 participants (>200,000 total) and a median sample size of 145. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 49 Evidence: high

A total of 57 articles were included in the review, including 3182 participants. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,182 Evidence: high

This study provides corroborating evidence that solanezumab does not slow cognitive decline in preclinical AD as exhibited with a computerized cognitive assessment with some evidence that solanezumab may exacerbate cognition on select digital outcomes. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,117 Evidence: moderate

The iCST app was deemed usable and enjoyable. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 Evidence: high

However, crossword puzzles might result in cognitively beneficial remodeling between the DMN and other networks in more severely impaired MCI subjects, parallel to the observed clinical benefits. 4 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: high

The 3-minute START task offers a means of supporting cognitive health in older adults and could be used at scale and within a precision medicine approach to reduce risk of cognitive decline in a targeted way. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 6,544 Evidence: high

The BTS implemented in MYB is focused on maximizing adherence and engagement with CCT over the short and long term in the setting of a fully digital trial, which, if successful, could be delivered economically at scale. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 100 Evidence: high

The addition of CS to the SPEP was a safe and effective method to gain statistically significant improvements in cognition, balance, FM, UEMS, IADL, and reduction in depression in PwAD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: high

Multidomain lifestyle modification is considered an effective intervention for dementia prevention due to its multifactorial nature. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high

Despite the large number of commercially available mobile health applications, the magnitude of the scientific evidence base remains very limited. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 21 Evidence: high

The use of ecologically oriented approaches with virtual reality (VR) depicting instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) is a promising approach for interventions on acquired brain injuries. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 17 Evidence: high

Participants in the experimental group had better overall subjective memory, subjective retrospective memory and global quality of life, with fewer depressive symptoms than those in the control group 3 months following the program. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 15 Evidence: high

Our sample had a mean age of 66.8 (SD = 5.3) years, a mean HAM-D score of 19.4 (SD = 7.5), and a mean PHQ-9 score of 18.0 (SD = 6.3). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high

Reliability and Validity of Smartphone Cognitive Testing for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. JAMA network open 2024-04-01

The findings of this cohort study suggest that smartphones could offer a feasible, reliable, valid, and scalable solution for remote evaluations of FTLD and may improve early detection. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 258 Evidence: moderate

Technology Literacy as a Barrier to Telehealth During COVID-19

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health 2020-05-19

Prior work has shown that the video component significantly contributes to quality and satisfaction of the visit.3 In addition to the technology itself, patients need to know what to expect for their telehealth appointments. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 5,000 Evidence: high

The care of people with dementia is largely provided by informal caregivers (e.g., family, friends), which can present significant challenges and increase caregivers' burden. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: high

MemScreen outperformed traditional tests in identifying MCI in both general and clinical populations. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,118 Evidence: moderate

Digital cognitive assessments have rapidly expanded in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research, offering a sensitive, scalable, and cost-effective alternative to traditional neuropsychological tests. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) aims to validate biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20,000 Evidence: moderate

Bilingualism has been linked to improved executive function and delayed onset of dementia, but it is unknown whether similar benefits can be obtained later in life through deliberate intervention. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 76 Evidence: high

This study will develop and test novel in-home technology to improve family caregiving relationships. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Our results corroborate the positive effect of pb-CT and its maintenance primarily on memory in HE and MCI participants that did not seem to be potentiated by RT. 5 key findings →

Participants: 348 Evidence: high

Overall, this cross-cultural feasibility study in Japanese users demonstrated that the various engagement metrics were significantly correlated, and greater engagement was related to improved nutrition scores and increased time exercising. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 559 Evidence: high

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed