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 1–23 of 23 studies in Digital health tools of type cross-sectional study · free to read · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 23 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.

The heterogeneity of neurodegenerative diseases is a key confound to disease understanding and treatment development, as study cohorts typically include multiple phenotypes on distinct disease trajectories. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Association of hearing impairment with brain volume changes in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. NeuroImage 2014-01-09

Hearing impairment in older adults is independently associated in longitudinal studies with accelerated cognitive decline and incident dementia, and in cross-sectional studies, with reduced volumes in the auditory cortex. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 126 Evidence: moderate

We evaluated 22 persons with nfvPPA (mean age: 67.3 years; 13 female patients) and confirmed underlying 4-repeat tauopathy, 15 persons with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA; mean age: 66.5 years; 8 female patients), and 10 healthy controls (HCs; 70 years; 5 female patients). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate

A fully automated computational approach included classical statistical methods, support vector machine procedures, and machine learning techniques (random forest and sequential feature selection procedures). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,794 Evidence: moderate

We evaluated 62 Automated speech analysis demonstrated high accuracy in differentiating FTD subtypes and provided insights into the neural basis of language impairments. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate

Cardiometabolic risk factors associated with brain age and accelerate brain ageing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Human brain mapping 2021-10-09

The structure and integrity of the ageing brain is interchangeably linked to physical health, and cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRs) are associated with dementia and other brain disorders. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

We demonstrated that it was both feasible and acceptable to set up these sensors in the community and unobtrusively collect data. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 59 Evidence: low

11 variables were critical in the training phase, including educational level, depression, insomnia, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), medication count, gender, stenting, systolic blood pressure (sbp), neurosis and rapid eye movement. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,379 Evidence: low

A gradient boosted machine (GBM) predicted the presence of AD as a function of gender, age, education, socioeconomic status (SES), and a mini-mental state exam (MMSE). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Actigraphy accurately identifies different dementia etiologies and could serve as a supplement to diagnostic investigations in patients with suspected AD for differential diagnostic purposes. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Machine learning (ML) on structural MRI data shows high potential for classifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression, but the specific contribution of brain regions, demographics, and proteinopathy remains unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 568 Evidence: moderate

The rise and fall of frequency and imageability: noun and verb production in semantic dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Brain and language 2000-06-01

This study examines the impact of progressive degeneration of conceptual knowledge on the content words used in connected speech elicited using the Cookie Theft picture description (Goodglass & Kaplan. 1983). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Relationship between Fried's frailty phenotype and oral frailty in long-term care residents

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Age and ageing 2021-11-01

Design the FINnish ORAL Health Study in Long-Term Care study is a cross-sectional clinical research comprising findings on oral and general health and nutrition. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

All groups showed significantly increased brain-PAD, and the median (IQR) brain-PAD was 4.3 (5.4) years in MCI, 6.3 (6.2) years in AD, and 5.0 (6.5) years in DLB. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 185 Evidence: low

Significant alterations were observed in 7 lipid classes and 65 specific lipid species in DLB compared to AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Caregivers with higher mastery had less NE reactivity to the stressor task. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Epidemiological data show that both PD incidence rate and prevalence rate show a significant age-dependent growth trend [3]. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional 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.

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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% 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    Where this research is being discussed: events