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 101–125 of 1,116 studies · tagged Digital Tools (page 5 of 45) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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.

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.

The study aims to assess the efficacy of the Big Brain Academy (BBA), a computerized cognitive training program (CT) based on video games, compared to the Integrated Psychostimulation Program (IPP), a classical CT tool for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

Home-based CCT Adaptive WM training appears more effective than Non-Adaptive training in older adults from different cultural backgrounds. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The incidence and prevalence in those over age 65 of neurodegenerative disorders and chronic diseases, which often have deleterious effects on cognition, are rapidly increasing in western societies. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

This paper explores the rationale for a mobile phone-led intervention and details the app's effect on behavior change and subsequent clinical outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 102 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease is the primary cause of dementia worldwide, with an increasing morbidity burden that may outstrip diagnosis and management capacity as the population ages. 5 key findings →

Participants: 417 Evidence: low

Early diagnosis of cognitive disorders in older adults is a major healthcare priority with benefits to patients, families, and health systems. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Supervised intervention delivery is linked to greatest benefits. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is often considered an early stage of dementia, with estimated rates of progression to dementia up to 80-90% after approximately 6 years from the initial diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Increased CSF APPs-α levels in patients with Alzheimer disease treated with acitretin

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2014-10-24

We investigated induction of α-secretase A disintegrin and metalloprotease 10 (ADAM10) by the synthetic retinoid acitretin (Neotigason; Actavis, München-Riem, Germany) in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) via measurement of CSF content of α-secretase-derived amyloid precursor protein (APPs-α). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Comorbid cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors (CVM) differentially impact brain structure and increase dementia risk, but their specific magnetic resonance imaging signatures (MRI) remain poorly characterized. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 37,096 Evidence: moderate

The analytical sample size of the study was 2,068,937, including 9.9% Black, 82.7% White, and 7.4% Hispanic individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The synthesized evidence is paramount to developing sophisticated AI approaches to reliably capture and quantify multiple subtle MRI changes in the whole brain that exemplify the complexity and heterogeneity of AD and brain aging. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Both interventions were highly feasible and acceptable and allowed improvement in different aspects of cognitive and psychosocial functioning in MCI subjects. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

The study consists of 25,186 patients (mean age = 63.0, interquartile range [IQR] of age = 15.1 years, male = 50%). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 25,186 Evidence: moderate

Telemedicine and the rural dementia population: A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Maturitas 2020-09-24

The testing conditions and the accessibility of telemedicine yield inconclusive results as to whether telemedicine can improve the management of dementia in geriatric individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

To develop a new method for measuring Alzheimer's disease (AD)-specific similarity of cortical atrophy patterns at the individual-level, we employed an individual-level machine learning algorithm. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 473 Evidence: moderate

The most novel characteristics of our machine learning model compared to previous ones are the following: 1) our deep learning model is multi-tasking, in the sense that it jointly learns to simultaneously predict both MCI to AD conversion as well as AD vs. healthy controls classification, which facilitates relevant feature extraction for AD prognostication; 2) the neural network classifier employs fewer parameters than other deep learning architectures which significantly limits data-overfitting (we use ∼550,000 network parameters, which is orders of magnitude lower than other network designs); 3) both structural MRI images and their warp field characteristics, which quantify local volumetric changes in relation to the MRI template, were used as separate input streams to extract as much information as possible from the MRI data. 1 key finding →

Participants: 785 Evidence: low

However, there are barriers to their use associated with sociodemographic factors and negative attitudes, as well as inadequate knowledge about technologies. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,172 Evidence: high

The DelApp test showed good performance, supporting the utility of objectively measuring attention in delirium assessment. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 50 Evidence: moderate

Combining multi-modality brain data for disease diagnosis commonly leads to improved performance. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A mutation in APP protects against Alzheimer's disease and age-related cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature 2012-08-01

The prevalence of dementia in the Western world in people over the age of 60 has been estimated to be greater than 5%, about two-thirds of which are due to Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 1,109 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 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