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 876–900 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools (page 36 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.

Cognitive and neurologic findings in subjects with diffuse white matter lucencies on computed tomographic scan (leuko-araiosis)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1987-01-01

As part of a prospective clinicopathologic study, a cohort of 105 "normal" elderly volunteers was investigated with computed tomographic scans, psychometric testing (Extended Scale for Dementia [ESD]) and neurologic examination. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Word-finding deficits persist after left anterotemporal lobectomy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1996-01-01

Differences between these results and those of previous studies may reflect differences in extent of surgical resection and/or differential sensitivity of psychometric measures of naming to word-finding problems. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism in patients with vascular dementia of the Binswanger type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Stroke 1990-12-01

We performed clinical and neuroradiologic studies, including positron emission tomography, in five patients with vascular dementia of the Binswanger type. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Patterns of cerebral atrophy in primary progressive aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry 2002-01-01

The authors illustrate the spectrum of clinical and imaging patterns in primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a syndrome of slowly progressive speech and language impairment occurring with neurodegenerative disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Nutrition and dementia care: developing an evidence-based model for nutritional care in nursing homes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. BMC geriatrics 2017-02-14

This collaboratively developed, person-centred model can support the design of new education and training tools and be readily translated into existing programmes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Comprehension of prosody in Huntington's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 1990-07-01

Patients with Huntington's Disease (HD) who were without dementia were compared to unilateral stroke patients and controls as previously reported in 1983, to discover if they had a prosodic defect. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Tools and talk: an evolutionary perspective on the functional deficits associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Muscle & nerve 2013-12-18

We propose that amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and frontotemporal dementia may be viewed as a failure of interlinked functional complexes having their origins in key evolutionary adaptations. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Memory and communication support in dementia: research-based strategies for caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2010-09-20

Using a knowledge-translation framework, information and strategies can be provided to family and professional caregivers to help them optimize residual memory and communication in people with dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

How technology is reshaping cognitive assessment: Lessons from the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Neuropsychology 2017-11-01

Technological advances will catalyze groundbreaking discoveries for effective treatments of neurodegenerative cognitive disorders, such as AD, and inform novel strategies for dementia prevention and sustained lifelong cognitive health. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Intracranial hypotension: clinical presentation, imaging findings, and imaging-guided therapy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Current opinion in neurology 2014-08-01

Recent findings Intracranial hypotension occurs spontaneously, following (lumbar) dural puncture, accidental dural opening, or excessive surgical cerebrospinal fluid drainage. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

A review on omics-based biomarkers discovery for Alzheimer's disease from the bioinformatics perspectives: Statistical approach vs machine learning approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Computers in biology and medicine 2021-10-14

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease that affects cognition and is the most common cause of dementia in the elderly. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A characterization of the prosodic loss in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Brain and language 1988-07-01

Prosodic contours in the verbal output of 30 patients with Idiopathic Parkinson's disease were contrasted to those of fifteen age-, sex-, and educationally matched normal subjects. 4 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

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

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

EEG-Based Dementia Classification Using CS-EMD Synchrony Features and Quantum Machine Learning

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 2025-03-05

Dementia is a condition that affects a very large population, and an effective clinical diagnosis can lead to early intervention to delay progressive cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Beneficial effect of artificial intelligence care call on memory and depression in community dwelling individuals with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2025-07-25

Traditional dementia-prevention programs have limited accessibility and lack continuous monitoring, making sustained cognitive and emotional support challenging. 4 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