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 76–100 of 1,094 studies in Digital health tools (page 4 of 44) · 27,780 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.

PARO may have some effect on motor activity of older people with dementia in long-term care, but not on sleep patterns. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This comprehensive portrait of rural-urban differences in dementia care highlights possible geographically based inequities and can be used by researchers and decision makers to guide development of more equitable dementia care policies. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Evaluation of Wearable Technology in Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Frontiers in medicine 2021-01-11

Forty-eight studies from 18,456 screened abstracts (Dementia: n = 2,516, Control: n = 1,224) met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,516 Evidence: high

In the prospective GLORIA-AF registry of AF patients, the presence of clinical complexity was associated with lower odds of being prescribed with OAC (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44–0.57), higher OAC discontinuation, and with a higher risk of adverse events (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.43–1.86).[ 4 ] Indeed, “high clinical complexity” patients defined using latent class analysis constituted 6.6% of AF patients, and was associated with higher hazards of experiencing the primary composite outcome of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (HR 1.47, 95% 1.24–1.75).[ 5 ] Comorbidities and polypharmacy have an important influence on decision-making, by conditioning either lack of prescription of OAC in patients at risk or inappropriate dosing.[ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] Recognizing that AF management is more than simply OAC alone, and requires a holistic and integrated care approach, contemporary guidelines globally on AF management have promoted this concept, based on the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway, emphasizing Anticoagulation, Better symptom management with rate or rhythm control, and Comorbidity/lifestyle management.[ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] The ABC pathway is well supported by clinical trial and real-world evidence,[ 11 ] whereby adherence to the ABC pathway is associated with a reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and bleeding.[ 12 ] [ 13 ] Despite this, adherence to ABC-based management remains low, whereby a meta-analysis of 14 studies revealed that only 21% (95% CI 13–34%) of AF patients were managed in accordance with the ABC pathway.[ 12 ] This perhaps highlights a critical gap in the implementation of comprehensive evidence-based care strategies. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Program participants (n = 382 men, n = 701 women; mean [SD] age, 82.10 [7.90] years; age range 54-101 years) were less likely to be admitted to a long-term care facility (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.59-0.61) than those not participating in the dementia care program (n = 759 men, n = 1407 women; mean [SD] age, 82.42 [8.50] years; age range, 34-103 years). 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 382 Evidence: moderate

Among patients with breast cancer, tamoxifen and steroidal aromatase inhibitors were associated with a decrease in the number who received a diagnosis of NDD, specifically Alzheimer disease and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

PheMap significantly streamlines the process of extracting research-quality phenotype information from EHRs, with comparable or better performance to current phenotyping approaches. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 821 Evidence: moderate

For the cohort of patients that remained on therapy > or =60 days, the mean time to treatment discontinuation was 331 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 307-355) for rivastigmine patients (n = 392) versus 337 days (95% CI, 322-352) for donepezil patients (n = 1288). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 392 Evidence: moderate

An individual's brainAGE is the difference between chronological age and age predicted from machine-learning models of brain-imaging data. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 869 Evidence: moderate

Previous studies from our group have shown that language changes may be reflected in connected speech production in the earliest stages of typical Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Early diagnosis of cognitive disorders in older adults is a major healthcare priority with benefits to patients, families, and health systems. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Digital literacy may help reduce cognitive decline among persons aged between 50 and 89 years. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,442 Evidence: moderate

Strikingly gene-expression, network-based analysis and cell type deconvolution approaches revealed a consistent immune signature in the brain and blood of female AD patients that was absent in males. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Supervised intervention delivery is linked to greatest benefits. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Despite improvements in diagnostic criteria for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), the ability to discriminate DLB from Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias remains suboptimal. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 43 Evidence: high

We evaluated 22 persons with nfvPPA (mean age: 67.3 years; 13 female patients) and confirmed underlying 4-repeat tauopathy, 15 persons with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA; mean age: 66.5 years; 8 female patients), and 10 healthy controls (HCs; 70 years; 5 female patients). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is often considered an early stage of dementia, with estimated rates of progression to dementia up to 80-90% after approximately 6 years from the initial diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Comorbid cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors (CVM) differentially impact brain structure and increase dementia risk, but their specific magnetic resonance imaging signatures (MRI) remain poorly characterized. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 37,096 Evidence: moderate

Cognition and anatomy in three variants of primary progressive aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2004-03-01

We performed a comprehensive cognitive, neuroimaging, and genetic study of 31 patients with primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a decline in language functions that remains isolated for at least 2 years. 3 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is regarded as the first clinical manifestation in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Graph theoretical analysis of the speech/language network showed that regions with shorter functional paths to the epicentre exhibited greater longitudinal atrophy. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30 Evidence: moderate

Multiple system tauopathy with presenile dementia (MSTD) is an inherited disease caused by a (g) to (a) transition at position +3 in intron 10 of Tau. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 21 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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