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 1–25 of 61 studies in Digital health tools published 2018 (page 1 of 3) · 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.

Our findings indicate that high-speed resistance exercise training approaches are effective in improving cognitive function and physical performance in older adults with cognitive frailty. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Epidemiological aspects of Parkinson's disease (PD), co-occurring diseases and medical healthcare utilization of PD patients are still largely elusive. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100,000 Evidence: moderate

Study objective To examine the risks and compare the occurrences of major long-term side effects (sexual dysfunction, bone fractures, diabetes, cardiovascular morbidity, acute myocardial infarction [MI], and dementia) in patients with prostate cancer who received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with those who did not. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 201,797 Evidence: moderate

The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 415 Evidence: high

The heterogeneity of neurodegenerative diseases is a key confound to disease understanding and treatment development, as study cohorts typically include multiple phenotypes on distinct disease trajectories. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

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

To develop a new method for measuring Alzheimer's disease (AD)-specific similarity of cortical atrophy patterns at the individual-level, we employed an individual-level machine learning algorithm. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 473 Evidence: moderate

MCI is highly prevalent in older adults with profound hearing loss. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate

Brain properties predict proximity to symptom onset in sporadic Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2018-06-01

Within the training set, individuals closer to or beyond their parent's symptom onset demonstrated reduced grey matter volume and altered functional connectivity, specifically in regions known to be vulnerable in Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 138 Evidence: moderate

Changes to everyday spoken language ("connected language") are evident in persons with AD dementia, yet little is known about when these changes are first detectable on the continuum of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 264 Evidence: moderate

Unsupervised machine learning identifies high likelihood of dementia in population-based surveys, even without cognitive and behavioral measures and without the need of clinical diagnosis of dementia in a subsample of the population. 2 key findings →

Participants: 18,165 Evidence: low

Between 2011 and 2014, seniors experiencing health decline used various digital health technologies at low absolute rates (range: 1%-20%). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,037 Evidence: moderate

This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy of Pet robot intervention (PRI) for people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

GIM services care for a markedly heterogeneous population but the most common conditions were similar across 7 hospitals. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 223 Evidence: low

Based on the systematic review, evidence suggests that treating hearing loss in persons with cognitive impairment can have benefits to communication and quality of life. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

A lexical semantic hub for heteromodal naming in middle fusiform gyrus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2018-07-01

We observed three stages of activity during both visual picture naming and auditory naming to definition that were serially organized: sensory processing, lexical semantic processing, and articulation. 2 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: moderate

Our review shows that picture description tasks are useful tools for detecting differences in a wide variety of language and communicative measures. 2 key findings →

Participants: 127 Evidence: low

Preliminary evidence was found to support communication interventions for people with moderate-severe dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Home-time, which can be readily calculated from administrative claims data, is substantially reduced for many patients following hospitalization for HF and is highly correlated with traditional time-to-event mortality and hospitalization outcomes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 59,736 Evidence: low

Men with prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy had a higher likelihood of developing new comorbidities than men who did not receive androgen deprivation therapy. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Neuropsychological tests showed significant differences between controls and mdMCI, and between controls and eD participants; GPCog, MoCA, PF, and SF also discriminated between controls and aMCI. 5 key findings →

Participants: 96 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