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 51–75 of 571 studies in Digital health tools · free to read (page 3 of 23) · 28,180 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.

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.

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

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

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

Comparisons of ADNC in typical amnestic versus atypical aphasic dementia and of TDP in type A versus type C revealed fundamental biological and clinical differences, suggesting that members of each pair may constitute distinct clinicopathologic entities despite identical downstream proteinopathies. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate

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

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

Additionally, the performance of each scale to predict dementia pathology both individually and in combination was evaluated using a support vector classifier, which was compared with expert scan assessment to estimate clinical value. 2 key findings →

Participants: 184 Evidence: low

Medical, surgical, and physical treatments for Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2024-01-01

Although dopamine replacement therapy remains a core component of Parkinson's disease treatment, the onset of motor fluctuations and dyskinetic movements might require a range of medical and surgical approaches from a multidisciplinary team, and important new approaches in the delivery of dopamine replacement are becoming available. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our results suggest that search strategies that use automated electronic search strategies to extract Charlson comorbidities from the clinical notes contained within the electronic medical record are feasible and reliable. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,447 Evidence: moderate

Changes in the properties of DTI may be the potential mechanism of WMH-related MCI, especially the right IFOF and the right ILF, which may become imaging markers for predicting WMH-related cognitive dysfunction. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 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

Our study demonstrates that MRI, a widespread imaging technology, can individually identify bvFTD with high accuracy in multi-center imaging data, paving the road to personalized diagnostic approaches in the future. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

We aimed to characterise the brain structure of superagers and identify demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors associated with this phenotype. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 64 Evidence: moderate

Our results demonstrate that different MAPT mutations give rise to distinct atrophy patterns and clinical phenotype, providing insights into the underlying disease biology and potential utility for patient stratification in therapeutic trials. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Brain properties predict proximity to symptom onset in sporadic Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2018-06-01

Within the training set, individuals closer to or beyond their parent's symptom onset demonstrated reduced grey matter volume and altered functional connectivity, specifically in regions known to be vulnerable in Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 138 Evidence: moderate

There is increasing interest in the use of technology to support social health in dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

This simple and feasible cognitive impairment prediction model could identify community-dwelling elderly people at the greatest 3-year risk for cognitive impairment, which could help community nurses in the early identification of dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate

The systematic literature review supported the argument that language and speech could successfully be used to detect dementia automatically. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Digital RT proved an innovative approach to manage PWD and will thus help PWD achieve a better mood and have more opportunities to engage in social interactions. 3 key findings →

Participants: 25 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 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