ArticlePloS one2025
Top-funded digital health companies offering lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention: Company overview and evidence analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveDementia prevention has been recognized as a top priority by public health authorities due to the lack of a reversible cure. In this regard, digital dementia-preventive lifestyle services (DDLS) emerge as potentially pivotal services, aiming to address modifiable risk factors on a large scale. This study aims to identify the top-funded companies offering DDLS and evaluate their clinical evidence to gain insights into the international service landscape.
methodsA systematic screening of two financial databases (Pitchbook and Crunchbase) was conducted. Corresponding published clinical evidence was collected through a systematic literature review and analyzed regarding study purpose, results, quality of results, and level of clinical evidence.
findingsThe 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.
conclusionOur 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.