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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–14 of 14 studies in Digital health tools with an author at Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 14 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.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,259 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.

MRI visual rating scales in the diagnosis of dementia: evaluation in 184 post-mortem confirmed cases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2016-03-01

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

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

Can Use of Digital Technologies by People with Dementia Improve Self-Management and Social Participation? A Systematic Review of Effect Studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Journal of clinical medicine 2021-02-05

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

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

Modifiable risk factors for dementia and dementia risk profiling. A user manual for Brain Health Services-part 2 of 6

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2021-10-11

Rare variants should only be investigated in users with a family history of early-onset dementia in a first degree relative. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Alzheimer Disease and Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia: Automatic Classification Based on Cortical Atrophy for Single-Subject Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Radiology 2015-12-11

The SVM can be used in single-subject discrimination and can help the clinician arrive at a diagnosis. 4 key findings →

Participants: 115 Evidence: low

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

Usability of a new electronic assistive device for community-dwelling persons with mild dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Aging & mental health 2012-02-24

With the suggested adaptations, the CDN is expected to be a useful tool for supporting community-dwelling persons with mild dementia and their carers. 1 key finding →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

User evaluation of the DEMentia-specific Digital Interactive Social Chart (DEM-DISC). A pilot study among informal carers on its impact, user friendliness and, usefulness

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Aging & mental health 2010-05-01

The positive effects might be caused by the systematic and tailored individual way of information provisioning by DEM-DISC. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Predicting Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease in Subjects with Mild Cognitive Impairment Using Machine Learning Classification of Multimodal Multicenter Diffusion-Tensor and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging 2015-01-28

Our results suggest that DTI data provide better prediction accuracy than GM volume in predementia AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Evaluation of the Digital Alzheimer Center: Testing Usability and Usefulness of an Online Portal for Patients with Dementia and Their Carers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. JMIR research protocols 2016-07-21

In the usability assessment, eight categories of errors were distinguished, of which three were of critical, two of medium, and three of low severity. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Genomics link obesity and type 2 diabetes to Alzheimers disease to unveil novel biological insights

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-17

Body mass index (BMI), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related cardiometabolic features associate with Alzheimers disease (AD) risk, yet shared mechanisms remain poorly understood. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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. 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