ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Passive digital health technologies for Alzheimer's disease screening and diagnosis: a systematic review.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Passive digital health technologies (DHTs) are increasingly promoted as scalable tools for detecting Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) earlier than routine clinic visits. We searched six major databases for English-language studies published between January 2014 and July 2024 that used passively collected, real-world DHT data for ADRD screening or diagnosis. Thirty studies met the criteria. Population sizes were highly skewed (median = 87; range 12-82,829), and most designs were longitudinal (53%) and fully passive (68%). Wrist-worn accelerometers and photoplethysmography sensors dominated, though several studies also used gait, sleep, voice, radar, or posture-tracking devices. A cross-study synthesis showed that those two modalities were primarily applied to memory, attention, and language tasks. Nineteen studies reported median accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and precision between 80-90%, with F1-score and AUC medians approaching 78%, though relying on in-sample cross-validation rather than external cohorts. Reference standards varied widely, data-quality criteria were seldom reported, and fewer than 5% shared datasets publicly. Classification was the predominant modeling strategy, with regression emerging only in recent years. Overall, passive DHTs show promise as low-burden triage tools for population-level ADRD screening, but routine deployment will require more diverse cohorts, harmonized reporting, multimodal privacy-preserving analytics, and rigorous human-factors evaluation.
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.