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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 126–150 of 238 studies (page 6 of 10) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 238 studies tagged digital — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Remote cognitive and behavioral assessment: Report of the Alzheimer Society of Canada Task Force on dementia care best practices for COVID-19

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2020-09-22

Despite challenges, current literature and practice support implementation of telemedicine assessments for patients with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Computerized Cognitive Testing for Use in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate C3 Batteries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2017-01-01

Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Computerized Structured Cognitive Training in Patients Affected by Early-Stage Alzheimer's Disease is Feasible and Effective: A Randomized Controlled Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists 2016-12-01

Patients in the experimental group showed a significant improvement in various neuropsychological domains, and their achievements were stable after 6 months. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Diagnostic Value of a Tablet-Based Drawing Task for Discrimination of Patients in the Early Course of Alzheimer's Disease from Healthy Individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2017-01-01

There is a considerable delay in the diagnosis of dementia, which may reduce the effectiveness of available treatments. 1 key finding →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Patient perspectives of the experience of a computerized cognitive assessment in a clinical setting

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2018-07-10

Careful design and user-testing should be made a priority in the development of computerized assessment interfaces, as well as reevaluating the cognitive assessment process to minimize patient anxiety and discomfort. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Reproducibility and replicability of high-frequency, in-home digital biomarkers in reducing sample sizes for clinical trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2021-12-31

For the reproducibility, identical P-values and slope estimates were found with both digital biomarkers and neuropsychological test measures between the previous and current studies. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Digital dementia in adults: an assessment of digital generations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Central European journal of public health 2026-09

The mean DDAF score was 40.56 ± 21.18 among digital natives (18-29 years), 34.93 ± 21.88 among the digital transition generation (30-44 years), and 25.17 ± 18.59 among digital immigrants (45-70 years) (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A Mobile Application for Smart Computer-Aided Self-Administered Testing of Cognition, Speech, and Motor Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Sensors 2020-06-06

We present a model for digital neural impairment screening and self-assessment, which can evaluate cognitive and motor deficits for patients with symptoms of central nervous system (CNS) disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), or dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Computerized cognitive testing battery identifies mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia even in the presence of depressive symptoms

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias 2006-01-01

Cognitive and depressive symptoms co-occur, complicating detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 72 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Validity of the Mindstreams computerized cognitive battery for mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN 2004-01-01

The NeuroTrax Mindstreams computerized cognitive assessment system was designed for widespread clinical and research use in detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Validity of a brief computerized cognitive screening test in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology 2012-06-01

CogState and standard neuropsychological task scores were significantly lower for dementia participants than that of the nondementia groups (P < .05), with a single CogState test distinguishing control from MCI participants, but minimal differentiation existing between dementias using the CogState. 2 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Reliability of repeated cognitive assessment of dementia using a brief computerized battery

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias 2011-06-01

In established dementia, administration of the CogState tasks appears sensitive to cognitive impairment in dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

From across this tag

9 of the 238 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 9. The same 9 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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