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 351–375 of 423 studies in Digital health tools · tagged Digital Tools (page 15 of 17) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

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.

Across AD, ALS, and FTD, a convergent multimorbidity architecture centered on a shared metabolic and immune core was identified, accompanied by prominent neurobehavioral processes and intermediate systems including gastrointestinal, endocrine, hematological, hepatic, and sensory pathways. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This paper presents a systematic bibliometric analysis of the research landscape at the intersection of Alzheimer's disease and gerontechnology, identifying key contributors, research hotspots, and emerging trends. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The use of linguistic biomarkers for detecting cognitive decline and early stages of dementia has demonstrated great potential due to its low-cost and non-invasive nature, especially towards a large aging population. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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 →

Evidence: low

Machine learning in mental health: a scoping review of methods and applications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Psychological medicine 2019-02-12

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 →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Artificial intelligence in dementia care: challenges, controversies, and policy implications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub 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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Multimodal sensing and machine learning for continuous monitoring of agitation in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

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 →

Participants: 42 Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

Dementia is a progressive condition that affects cognition, communication, mobility, and independence, posing growing challenges for individuals, caregivers, and healthcare systems. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Artificial intelligence as an emerging technology in the current care of neurological disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub 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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

Artificial intelligence approach to optimise safety for hospitalised patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub 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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

Dementia poses an on-going Canadian challenge due to an aging population, with cases projected to rise significantly by 2050. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 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.

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

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed