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 81 studies in Digital health tools published 2020 (page 1 of 4) · 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.

Benefits and risks of statins relative to neurological outcomes should be considered when prescribed for at-risk NDD populations. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 288,515 Evidence: moderate

Therefore, we conducted a longitudinal study to examine whether PM2.5 affects the episodic memory decline, and also explored the potential mediating role of increased neuroanatomic risk of Alzheimer's disease associated with exposure. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 998 Evidence: moderate

We performed a systematic review of studies focusing on the automatic prediction of the progression of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, and a quantitative analysis of the methodological choices impacting performance. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 172 Evidence: high

Promising results are reported across nearly all 51 studies, but very few have been implemented in clinical research or practice. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Targeted clinical application of specific technologies is poised to revolutionize precision care in dementia as these technologies may be used both by patients and caregivers, and at a systems level to provide safe and effective care. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,337 Evidence: high

Data collected from clinical trials and cohort studies, such as dementia studies, are often high-dimensional, censored, heterogeneous and contain missing information, presenting challenges to traditional statistical analysis. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,037 Evidence: moderate

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

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

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

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

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

Telemedicine and the rural dementia population: A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Maturitas 2020-09-24

The testing conditions and the accessibility of telemedicine yield inconclusive results as to whether telemedicine can improve the management of dementia in geriatric individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

A cognitive symptom measure identified in discharge notes facilitated stratification of risk for dementia up to 8 years before diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Changes in the properties of DTI may be the potential mechanism of WMH-related MCI, especially the right IFOF and the right ILF, which may become imaging markers for predicting WMH-related cognitive dysfunction. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate

The systematic literature review supported the argument that language and speech could successfully be used to detect dementia automatically. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Digital RT proved an innovative approach to manage PWD and will thus help PWD achieve a better mood and have more opportunities to engage in social interactions. 3 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Bibliometric Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Journal of medical Internet research 2020-07-29

This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the AI-related research conducted in the field of health care, which helps researchers, policy makers, and practitioners better understand the development of health care-related AI research and possible practice implications. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Human DNA methylation data have been used to develop biomarkers of ageing, referred to as 'epigenetic clocks', which have been widely used to identify differences between chronological age and biological age in health and disease including neurodegeneration, dementia and other brain phenotypes. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,397 Evidence: low

Nationwide population-based cohort provides a new opportunity to build an automated risk prediction model based on individuals' history of health and healthcare beyond existing risk prediction models. 1 key finding →

Participants: 40,736 Evidence: moderate

Four subphenotypes were computationally derived that correlated with cardiovascular diseases and mental health illnesses. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 273 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