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 451–475 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools (page 19 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.

After deduplication and screening of 8893 records, we included 109 studies describing a wide array of wearable or portable DHTs that obtained digital biomarkers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 109 Evidence: low

The prevalence of low vision in the Medicare population was 994/100,000 and increased significantly with age, Black (1,854/100,000) or Hispanic (2,862/100,000) race/ethnicity, female gender (1,181/100,000), and Medicaid eligibility (2,975/100,000). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Dendritic spines provide cognitive resilience against Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2017-10-22

These observations provide cellular evidence to support the hypothesis that dendritic spine plasticity is a mechanism of cognitive resilience that protects older individuals with AD pathology from developing dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study provides pathological validation that the new criteria assist with separating PPA cases with AD pathology into the new lv-PPA syndrome and found that a number of diagnostic clinical features (disinhibition, food preferences and naming) did not assist in discriminating the different FTD syndromes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuroinflammation and protein pathology in Parkinson's disease dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica communications 2020-12-03

Parkinson's disease dementia is neuropathologically characterized by aggregates of α-synuclein (Lewy bodies) in limbic and neocortical areas of the brain with additional involvement of Alzheimer's disease-type pathology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This review should serve as a compendium of updated information on VaD and provide guidance in terms of newer diagnostic and potential therapeutic approaches. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Comprehension of insincere communication is an important aspect of social cognition requiring visual perspective taking, emotion reading, and understanding others' thoughts, opinions, and intentions. 2 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: low

Five patients with Parkinson's disease, unilaterally transplanted with foetal mesencephalic cells into putamen (n=1) or putamen and caudate (n=4), were followed throughout a period of 15-36 months after surgery, according to the recommendations of the core assessment programme for intracerebral transplantations (CAPIT). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease: comparison of speech and language alterations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 1988-05-01

Speech and language alterations were assessed in 51 patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and 10 patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT). 3 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

Clinical trials focusing on therapeutic candidates that modify β-amyloid (Aβ) have repeatedly failed to treat Alzheimer's disease (AD), suggesting that Aβ may not be the optimal target for treating AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our results indicate the potential value of vocal analytics and the use of a mobile application for accurate automatic differentiation between SCI, MCI and AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 165 Evidence: low

Clinicopathologic differences among patients with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2013-01-16

During life, patients with AD pathology may be misdiagnosed with bvFTD if they have an early age at onset and prominent neuropsychiatric features despite having greater memory difficulties and more intact personality and executive functions than patients with bvFTD-FTLD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Changes in delta bandpower showed the highest and most consistent pattern of correlations with longitudinal changes in neuropsychological testing. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Ageing societies and a rising prevalence of dementia are associated with increasing demand for care home places. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

New personalized endpoints that are clinically meaningful to individuals and their families should be developed. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and cortocobasal degeneration (CBD) are often clinically confused with each other because they share a rapid disease progression, parkinsonism that responds poorly or transiently to levodopa therapy, and associated signs (e.g., ocular abnormalities, pyramidal signs and cognitive involvement). 5 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

Unusual clinical presentations of cortical-basal ganglionic degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1996-12-01

Cortical-basal ganglionic degeneration classically presents predominantly as a motor disorder with a unique constellation of histological alterations characterized by the presence of neuronal loss and gliosis in a selective distribution, swollen achromasic neurons, and extensive deposition of abnormal tau in neurons and glia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Divergent patterns of TDP-43 and tau pathologies in primary progressive aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2019-03-28

Postmortem cortical pathology was left-lateralized in both FTLD-TDP (beta = -0.15, standard error [SE] = 0.05, p = 0.007) and FTLD-Tau (beta = -0.09, SE = 0.04, p = 0.015), but the degree of lateralization decreased with greater overall dementia severity before death (beta = -8.18, SE = 3.22, p = 0.015). 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

After adjusting for sex, years of education, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, apolipoprotein E ε4 carriership, and hearing rehabilitation (defined as hearing aid or cochlear implant use), neither PTA (hazard ratio [HR] per 10-decibels hearing level increase of 0·99 (95% CI 0·89-1·12; p=0·91) nor WRS (HR per 10% decrease of 0·98, 95% CI 0·89-1 ·07; p=0·65) was significantly associated with the development of dementia. 3 key findings →

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