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 401–423 of 423 studies in Digital health tools · tagged Digital Tools (page 17 of 17) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 423 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 “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.

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 →

Evidence: low

The results suggest a viable pathway for developing ML support tools to provide feedback on DDP compliance at an early design stage. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Participants: 6,328 Evidence: low

Smartphone Passive Digital Phenotyping in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub 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 →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate

Artificial intelligence can assist providers in a variety of patient care and intelligent health systems. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), and/or diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) are at increased risk for limb loss and death. 3 key findings →

Participants: 178,995 Evidence: moderate

Imputation-Based Harmonization Mitigates Site Effects Without Data Leakage in Machine Learning Studies

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2026-10-05

Neuroimaging studies that pool data across clinical sites often suffer from site effects — variability in imaging measures that arises from technical heterogeneity across sites as opposed to true biological signal. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Examining the Clinical Utility of Deep Learning Models for Perivascular Space Segmentation in Alzheimer’s Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-09-28

Open-source deep learning models promise scalable quantification of MRI-visible perivascular spaces (PVS), an emerging marker of glymphatic dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Artificial-intelligence (AI) systems for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) increasingly use neuroimaging or spontaneous speech, but reported performance is difficult to interpret across studies because cohorts, endpoints, languages, preprocessing, and validation protocols differ. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Deep learning classifiers trained on structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are increasingly proposed for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), yet the pipelines that produce these models depend on shared datasets, pre-trained weights, and federated updates that an adversary can poison. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Digital medication-management tools for Alzheimer's disease (AD) typically record only whether a dose was taken, leaving the temporal and behavioral structure of adherence largely unused as a predictive signal. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Can objective measures of physical activity and sleep serve as early predictors of dementia among individuals with cognitive impairment?

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2025-12-15

The MCI group had the most surprising findings—although they were cognitively similar to the control group, they were less physically active than the AD group and had the worst sleep efficiency. 3 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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