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.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

These findings show that model-based, adaptive assessments can support high-frequency, remote detection and scalable longitudinal monitoring of early memory decline, providing a new way to assess memory decline trajectories in healthy aging and dementia. As a result, changes in memory function are often detected too late and their trajectories cannot be traced. These results demonstrate that digital, model-driven cognitive assessments can support scalable, high-frequency monitoring of memory decline.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Hake, H. S., van der Velde, M., Grabowski, T., van Rijn, H., & Stocco, A. (2026). Detection and Continuous Monitoring of Memory Dysfunction in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Healthy Aging Through Adaptive Computational Phenotyping. medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.15.24304345

Vancouver

Hake HS, van der Velde M, Grabowski T, van Rijn H, Stocco A. Detection and Continuous Monitoring of Memory Dysfunction in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Healthy Aging Through Adaptive Computational Phenotyping. medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.1101/2024.03.15.24304345.

BibTeX

@article{hake2026-e09a5c42,
  author  = {Hake, H. S. and van der Velde, M. and Grabowski, T. and van Rijn, H. and Stocco, A.},
  title   = {{Detection and Continuous Monitoring of Memory Dysfunction in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Healthy Aging Through Adaptive Computational Phenotyping}},
  journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1101/2024.03.15.24304345},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.15.24304345}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study shows that model-based, adaptive digital assessments can support high-frequency remote monitoring of early memory decline in healthy aging and mild cognitive impairment. It is a monitoring tool, not a treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 30 of the 68 points it could be judged on, which is 44 of 100. Raw total 44 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 44 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 44 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 68 points we could judge it on, which is 44 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint))
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 24 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (OpenAlex dates this DOI to 2024, the record says 2026; OpenAlex values not used) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 30 / 68 Scored on 13 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 68 points we could judge it on is 44 out of 100.
Total 44 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

Also tagged “assessment”

840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →