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 426–450 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools (page 18 of 44) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Because individuals develop dementia as a manifestation of neurodegenerative or neurovascular disorder, there is a need to develop reliable approaches to their identification. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Automated MRI-based classification of primary progressive aphasia variants

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. NeuroImage 2009-06-06

Degeneration of language regions in the dominant hemisphere can result in primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a clinical syndrome characterized by progressive deficits in speech and/or language function. 4 key findings →

Participants: 86 Evidence: low

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

On clinical data, this innovative approach for early diagnosis might provide more insight into pathophysiological processes underlying degenerative changes, as well as toward a personalized risk evaluation for pharmacological, nonpharmacological, and rehabilitation treatments. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

The study of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia, faces challenges in terms of understanding the cause, monitoring the pathogenesis, and developing early diagnoses and effective treatments. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

There is no disease-modifying treatment currently available for AD, one of the more impacting neurodegenerative diseases affecting more than 47.5 million people worldwide. 1 key finding →

Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate

Predicting Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Machine Learning Approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2020-01-01

Higher-order factors (e.g., emotional distress, subjective health), which reflect complex interactions between various aspects of an individual, were more important than narrowly defined factors (e.g., clinical and behavioral indicators) when evaluated concurrently to predict cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 9,979 Evidence: low

Accurate detection and classification of aspiration is a critical component of videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation, the most commonly utilized instrumental method for dysphagia diagnosis and treatment. 4 key findings →

Participants: 669 Evidence: high

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration proteinopathies with tau inclusions (FTLD-Tau) or TDP-43 inclusions (FTLD-TDP) are associated with clinically similar phenotypes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 92 Evidence: moderate

By 2040 more people in Scotland are projected to die with palliative care needs, and the complexity of need will increase markedly. 3 key findings →

Participants: 34 Evidence: low

Easily accessible biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and related neurodegenerative disorders are urgently needed in an aging society to assist early-stage diagnoses. 4 key findings →

Participants: 377 Evidence: low

We observed that existing AI-assisted dietary assessment tools are integrated with mobile/web-based applications to provide a user-friendly interface. 5 key findings →

Participants: 17,613 Evidence: low

Early identification of individuals at increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a pre-dementia state, can provide a critical window for prompt intervention to prevent or reverse disease progression. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 87 Evidence: moderate

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

↑ 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