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 51–75 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools (page 3 of 44) · 27,380 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.

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.

Deintensification of treatment regimens occurred in less than one-half of potentially overtreated Veterans and was more strongly associated with low HbA1c values and use of medications with high risk for hypoglycemia, rather than other resident characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,056 Evidence: moderate

Increased CSF neurogranin concentration is specific to Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2016-01-29

An optimized immunoassay was used to analyze CSF Ng in a retrospective cohort of 331 participants with different neurodegenerative diseases, including healthy controls (n = 19), biomarker-proven Alzheimer disease (AD) (n = 100), genetic AD (n = 2), behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (n = 20), speech variant frontotemporal dementia (n = 21), Lewy body dementia (n = 13), Parkinson disease (n = 31), progressive supranuclear palsy (n = 46), multiple system atrophy (n = 29), as well as a heterogeneous group with non-neurodegenerative cognitive impairment (n = 50). 1 key finding →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 19 Evidence: moderate

These findings suggest that machine learning algorithms could accurately predict incident dementia within 2 years in patients receiving care at memory clinics using only 6 variables. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 307 Evidence: moderate

Although behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is classically defined by behavioral and socio-emotional changes, impairments often extend to other cognitive functions. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 181 Evidence: high

Predicting cognitive decline with deep learning of brain metabolism and amyloid imaging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Behavioural brain research 2018-02-14

For effective treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is important to identify subjects who are most likely to exhibit rapid cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 139 Evidence: moderate

Low-Value Care at the Actionable Level of Individual Health Systems

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2021-11-01

The findings of this large cohort study suggest that system-level measurement and reporting of specific low-value services is feasible, enables cross-system comparisons, and reveals a broad range of low-value care use. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Preventable hospital readmissions have been recognized as indicators of hospital quality, a source of increased healthcare expenditures, and a burden for patients, families, and caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,133 Evidence: moderate

Men, racial and ethnic minority individuals, older adults, and those with language barriers are at increased risk for undertreatment of depression. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Neuropsychiatric Ramifications of Severe COVID-19 and Other Severe Acute Respiratory Infections

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA psychiatry 2022-07-01

In this cohort study of data from 8.38 million adults (4.18 million women, 4.20 million men; mean [SD] age 49.18 [18.45] years); 16 679 (0.02%) survived a hospital admission for SARI, and 32 525 (0.03%) survived a hospital admission for COVID-19. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Careful consideration of model specification and the profound effects of mortality selection in the older adult population is essential when investigating the relationship between aging-related diseases such as cancer and AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 92,425 Evidence: moderate

Although the performance of the different methods still has room for improvement, the results are promising and this methodology has a great potential as a support tool for clinicians and healthcare professionals. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

There was some evidence that the use of smartphones and tablets could aid cognitive function in older adults without cognitive impairment, particularly executive function and processing speed. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 28 Evidence: high

MYB will be the largest internet-based trial to attempt to prevent cognitive decline and potentially dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The insular cortex is proposed to function as a central brain hub characterized by wide-spread connections and diverse functional roles. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,261 Evidence: high

We developed machine learning prediction models for post-operative delirium that performed better than chance and are comparable with traditional stepwise logistic regression. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 134 Evidence: moderate

Older adults with cognitive disorders can learn smartphone-based memory strategies and doing so benefits prospective memory functioning and independence. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

We conducted the largest metabolome investigation of dementia to date, for the first time revealed the metabolite importance ranking, and highlighted the contribution of plasma metabolites for dementia prediction. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 274,160 Evidence: moderate

Association of hearing impairment with brain volume changes in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. NeuroImage 2014-01-09

Hearing impairment in older adults is independently associated in longitudinal studies with accelerated cognitive decline and incident dementia, and in cross-sectional studies, with reduced volumes in the auditory cortex. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 126 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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