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 726–750 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools (page 30 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.

Other 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.

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.

Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change scores for the timed "up & go" test, the six-minute walk test, and gait speed in people with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Physical therapy 2009-04-23

The TUG, the 6MWT, and gait speed are reliable outcome measures for use with people with AD, recognizing that individual variability of performance is high. 2 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Associations of gait speed and other measures of physical function with cognition in a healthy cohort of elderly persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2007-11-01

In very healthy older adults, performance-based measures better predict early cognitive decline than do subjective measures, and tasks requiring greater functional reserve, such as fast-paced walking, appear to be the most sensitive in assessing these relationships. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Marked cerebrospinal fluid void: indicator of successful shunt in patients with suspected normal-pressure hydrocephalus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Radiology 1991-02-01

The authors blindly reviewed the charts of 20 patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus (a disease of unknown cause characterized radiologically as chronic communicating hydrocephalus and clinically by gait apraxia, dementia, and incontinence) who had undergone creation of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. 2 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

AAC for adults with acquired neurological conditions: a review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Augmentative and alternative communication (Baltimore, Md. : 1985) 2007-09-01

The purpose of this review is to describe the state of the science of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for adults with acquired neurogenic communication disorders. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Clinical diagnostic criteria and classification controversies in frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. International review of psychiatry (Abingdon, England) 2013-04-01

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) can manifest as a spectrum of clinical syndromes, ranging from behavioural impairment to language or motor dysfunction. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Potential value and impact of data mining and machine learning in clinical diagnostics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences 2021-03-19

Data mining involves the use of mathematical sciences, statistics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to determine the relationships between variables from a large sample of data. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Progressive supranuclear palsy presenting as primary lateral sclerosis but lacking parkinsonism, gaze palsy, aphasia, or dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of the neurological sciences 2012-09-29

We report an autopsy case of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) that clinically showed only slowly progressive and symmetric upper motor neuron syndrome over a disease course of 12 years. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Digital dementia in the internet generation: excessive screen time during brain development will increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias in adulthood

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of integrative neuroscience 2022-01-01

Emerging evidence suggests that some of these effects are similar to those seen in adults with symptoms of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in the early stages of dementia, including impaired concentration, orientation, acquisition of recent memories (anterograde amnesia), recall of past memories (retrograde amnesia), social functioning, and self-care. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Prefrontal cortex rTMS enhances action naming in progressive non-fluent aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. European journal of neurology 2012-03-21

Our study demonstrated that rTMS improved action naming in subjects with PNFA, possibly due to the modulation of DLPFC pathways and a facilitation effect on lexical retrieval processes. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Corticobasal degeneration with primary progressive aphasia and accentuated cortical lesion in superior temporal gyrus: case report and review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 1996-11-01

A 57-year-old woman showed progressive sensory aphasia as an initial symptom, and then developed total aphasia within 6 years and, finally, severe dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Using Health Utility Index (HUI) for measuring the impact on health-related quality of Life (HRQL) among individuals with chronic diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. TheScientificWorldJournal 2004-08-27

The Health Utilities Index (HUI) is a recently developed system for measuring the overall health status and health-related quality of life (HRQL) of individuals, clinical groups, and general populations. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Novel benzoic acid derivatives: Synthesis and biological evaluation as multitarget acetylcholinesterase and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Archiv der Pharmazie 2020-11-06

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by dementia, memory impairment, cognitive dysfunction, and speech impairment. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Identification of Mild Cognitive Impairment From Speech in Swedish Using Deep Sequential Neural Networks

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Frontiers in neurology 2018-11-15

While people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) portray noticeably incipient memory difficulty in remembering events and situations along with problems in decision making, planning, and finding their way in familiar environments, detailed neuropsychological assessments also indicate deficits in language performance. 2 key findings →

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 27,380 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