alzhub.org
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.

Research

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 76–100 of 571 studies in Digital health tools · free to read (page 4 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.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Recalibrating the epigenetic clock: implications for assessing biological age in the human cortex

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2020-12-01

Human DNA methylation data have been used to develop biomarkers of ageing, referred to as 'epigenetic clocks', which have been widely used to identify differences between chronological age and biological age in health and disease including neurodegeneration, dementia and other brain phenotypes. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,397 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Machine learning prediction of incidence of Alzheimer's disease using large-scale administrative health data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. NPJ digital medicine 2020-03-26

Nationwide population-based cohort provides a new opportunity to build an automated risk prediction model based on individuals' history of health and healthcare beyond existing risk prediction models. 1 key finding →

Participants: 40,736 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Declines in Connected Language Are Associated with Very Early Mild Cognitive Impairment: Results from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2018-01-09

Changes to everyday spoken language ("connected language") are evident in persons with AD dementia, yet little is known about when these changes are first detectable on the continuum of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 264 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Sensor-derived physical activity parameters can predict future falls in people with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Gerontology 2014-08-28

Surprisingly, fallers and non-fallers did not differ on any conventional assessment (p = 0.069-0.991), except for 'previous faller' (p = 0.006). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Unsupervised Machine Learning to Identify High Likelihood of Dementia in Population-Based Surveys: Development and Validation Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of medical Internet research 2018-07-09

Unsupervised machine learning identifies high likelihood of dementia in population-based surveys, even without cognitive and behavioral measures and without the need of clinical diagnosis of dementia in a subsample of the population. 2 key findings →

Participants: 18,165 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Cognitive improvement effects of electro-acupuncture for the treatment of MCI compared with Western medications: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. BMC complementary and alternative medicine 2019-01-08

Electroacupuncture was an effective treatment for MCI patients by improving cognitive function. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 103 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Digital Clock and Recall is superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination for the detection of mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2024-01-02

DCR outperforms the MMSE in detecting and classifying cognitive impairment-in a fraction of the time-while being not influenced by a patient's ethnicity. 5 key findings →

Participants: 360 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Enhancing dementia risk prediction with heart rate and machine learning in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-10-29

BackgroundAccurate and accessible risk assessment tools are essential for effective dementia management. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27,768 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Machine learning-based prediction of short- and long-term mortality for shared decision-making in older hip fracture patients: the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit algorithms in 74,396 cases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Acta Orthopaedica 2025-07-07

74,396 patients (median age 84, IQR 78-89; 68% female) were analyzed. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 74,396 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Improving diagnostic accuracy of multiple system atrophy: a clinicopathological study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2019-09-01

Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed increased likelihood of multiple system atrophy versus Lewy body disease and progressive supranuclear palsy if a patient developed orthostatic hypotension or urinary incontinence with the requirement for urinary catheters [multiple system atrophy versus Lewy body disease: odds ratio (OR): 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-3.7, P = 0.021; multiple system atrophy versus progressive supranuclear palsy: OR: 11.2, 95% CI: 3.2-39.2, P < 0.01]. 2 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A metabolite-based machine learning approach to diagnose Alzheimer-type dementia in blood: Results from the European Medical Information Framework for Alzheimer disease biomarker discovery cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2019-12-18

This study showed that plasma metabolites have the potential to match the AUC of well-established AD CSF biomarkers in a relatively small cohort. 4 key findings →

Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

APOE ε4 carriers share immune-related proteomic changes across neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature medicine 2025-07-15

The APOE ε4 genetic variant is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and is increasingly being implicated in other neurodegenerative diseases. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Data-driven discovery of probable Alzheimer's disease and related dementia subphenotypes using electronic health records

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Learning health systems 2020-09-10

Four subphenotypes were computationally derived that correlated with cardiovascular diseases and mental health illnesses. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 273 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Identifying undetected dementia in UK primary care patients: a retrospective case-control study comparing machine-learning and standard epidemiological approaches

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. BMC medical informatics and decision making 2019-12-02

Our model could aid GPs or health service planners with the early detection of dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 93,120 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The Vallecas Project: A Cohort to Identify Early Markers and Mechanisms of Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2015-09-30

We have established a valuable homogeneous single-center cohort which, by identifying groups of variables associated with high risk of MCI or dementia conversion, should help to clarify the early physiopathological mechanisms of AD and should provide avenues for prompt diagnosis and AD prevention. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,169 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

An FDG-PET–Based Machine Learning Framework to Support Neurologic Decision-Making in Alzheimer Disease and Related Disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2025-06-27

The discovery cohort contained 3,671 individuals with a mean age of 68 years and consisted of 49% reported female. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,671 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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