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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

The slow progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses a challenge for the quantification of early disease-driven cognitive decline. Here, we show that frequently administered remote and unsupervised digital cognitive assessments can detect differences in cognitive decline within 30 weeks in early AD. The sample comprised 202 individuals (52-85 years old) recruited from longitudinal observational studies, who were cognitively unimpaired (CU, n = 152) or had a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n = 50). Participants self-administered remote tasks testing memory precision for objects and scenes, associative memory, and familiarity-dependent memory. The MCI group showed greater decline than the CU group in the familiarity-dependent task, while stratifying the MCI group by beta-amyloid (Aβ) status (n = 21 Aβ-; n = 24 Aβ+) revealed greater change in memory precision for objects and familiarity-dependent memory in the MCI Aβ+ group. A 30-week change in the remote familiarity-dependent task was correlated with a multi-year change in annual in-person neuropsychological assessments. In conclusion, frequent remote cognitive testing is a promising tool to feasibly capture and monitor subtle and short-term cognitive decline.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 70/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 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 left out, no data; 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 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 39 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 70 of 100. Total 70 of 100.39 of the 56 points we could judge = 70 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 70 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NPJ digital medicine)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 152 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 (not found in OpenAlex) — 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 — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
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 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42270927)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 39 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 70 out of 100.
Total 70 / 100 —

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.

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

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Polk, S. E., Clark, L. R., Basche, K., Kleineidam, L., Glanz, W., Butryn, M., et al. (2026). Smartphone-based detection of subtle memory decline in prodromal Alzheimer's disease. NPJ digital medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-02731-1

Vancouver

Polk SE, Clark LR, Basche K, Kleineidam L, Glanz W, Butryn M, et al. Smartphone-based detection of subtle memory decline in prodromal Alzheimer's disease. NPJ digital medicine. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02731-1. PMID: 42270927.

BibTeX

@article{polk2026-42270927,
  author  = {Polk, Sarah E and Clark, Lindsay R and Basche, Kristin and Kleineidam, Luca and Glanz, Wenzel and Butryn, Michaela and Perneczky, Robert and Buerger, Katharina and others},
  title   = {{Smartphone-based detection of subtle memory decline in prodromal Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {NPJ digital medicine},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1038/s41746-026-02731-1},
  pmid    = {42270927},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-02731-1}
}

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “computerized”

238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →