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.

48/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

The ten top-funded companies offering DDLS received a total funding of EUR 128.52 million, of which three companies collected more than 75%. Clinical evidence was limited due to only nine eligible publications, small clinical subject groups, the absence of longitudinal study designs, and no direct evidence of dementia prevention. Our study shows that the level of funding received by companies does not reflect the clinical effectiveness of DDLS. The study serves as an initial step toward understanding how DDLS are currently evaluated in today's market and highlights the need for a more rigorous evaluation of DDLS effectiveness.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Moderate

This is a follow-up (cohort) study. This analysis of top-funded digital health companies offering lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention found limited clinical evidence and no direct evidence of dementia prevention. It shows that funding level does not reflect clinical effectiveness and calls for more rigorous evaluation.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Vinay, R., Probst, J., Huynh, P., Schlögl, M., Kowatsch, T., & Nißen, M. (2025). Top-funded digital health companies offering lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention: Company overview and evidence analysis. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323390

Vancouver

Vinay R, Probst J, Huynh P, Schlögl M, Kowatsch T, Nißen M. Top-funded digital health companies offering lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention: Company overview and evidence analysis. PLoS ONE. 2025. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323390. PMID: 40323948.

BibTeX

@article{vinay2025-40323948,
  author  = {Vinay, Rasita and Probst, Jonas and Huynh, Panitda and Schlögl, Mathias and Kowatsch, Tobias and Nißen, Marcia},
  title   = {{Top-funded digital health companies offering lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention: Company overview and evidence analysis}},
  journal = {PLoS ONE},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1371/journal.pone.0323390},
  pmid    = {40323948},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323390}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

The ten top-funded companies offering DDLS received a total funding of EUR 128.52 million, of which three companies collected more than 75%.
Clinical evidence was limited due to only nine eligible publications, small clinical subject groups, the absence of longitudinal study designs, and no direct evidence of dementia prevention.
Our study shows that the level of funding received by companies does not reflect the clinical effectiveness of DDLS.
The study serves as an initial step toward understanding how DDLS are currently evaluated in today's market and highlights the need for a more rigorous evaluation of DDLS effectiveness.

Why it matters

This analysis of top-funded digital health companies offering lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention found limited clinical evidence and no direct evidence of dementia prevention. It shows that funding level does not reflect clinical effectiveness and calls for more rigorous evaluation.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 48/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PLoS ONE)
Journal's citation record	4 / 4	PLoS ONE: journal h-index 594 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 3 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	1.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 1.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 3 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	1 / 4	Last-listed author Marcia Nißen: h-index 13 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	ETH Zurich: institution h-index 1,286 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40323948)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	48 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

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

Related studies in Digital health tools from nearby years

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →