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.

Find studies

Showing 51–75 of 405 studies · free to read · tagged Care Services (page 3 of 17) · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 405 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

The sample included 3 329 977 beneficiaries (2 126 290 [63.9%] female, 33 887 [1.0%] Asian, 354 771 [10.7%] Black, 61 515 [1.8%] Hispanic, 2 831 391 [85.0%] White, and 891 815 [26.8%] dual eligible for Medicaid). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The study included 722 911 hospitalization episodes, of which 66 676 were related to patients with ADRD (mean [SD] age, 83.4 [8.6] years; 42 439 [63.6%] female) and 656 235 were related to patients without ADRD (mean [SD] age, 66.0 [15.4] years; 351 246 [53.5%] female). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 722 Evidence: moderate

In those aged 65 years or older, delirium was overall associated (all p<0·001, age and sex adjusted) with dementia ( adj OR 3·63 [95% CI 2·65–4·98]), pre-admission dependency (2·63 [2·02–3·43]), comorbidity burden (1·04 [1·02–1·05]), and frailty (moderate vs low risk 3·62 [2·70–4·85] and high vs low risk 11·85 [7·24–19·42]), with stronger associations in patients without comorbid dementia than in those with comorbid dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 290 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217 and p-tau217/Aβ42 concentrations demonstrated robust diagnostic performance in a heterogeneous clinical cohort; interpretation requires consideration of kidney function. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 509 Evidence: moderate

Delirium is a distressing neurocognitive disorder recently linked to sleep disturbances. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 818 Evidence: moderate

A total of 1780 major operations (representing 9 556 171 survey-weighted operations nationally) were identified from 1477 community-living participants; mean (SD) age was 79.5 (7.0) years, with 56% being female. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,780 Evidence: moderate

Risk of Continued Institutionalization After Hospitalization in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series A 2011-10-03

From 1996 through 2008, 5.55% of hospitalized patients resided in a nursing home 6 months later compared with 0.54% of nonhospitalized control patients. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 762,243 Evidence: moderate

Portable, low‐field imaging could be useful for identifying moderate to severe WMHs. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate

Delirium and adverse clinical outcomes: a matched cohort study in the UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The Lancet Healthy Longevity 2026-01-01

Over a maximum follow-up of 26 years, the median time to event was 1·2 years (IQR 0·2-3·3) in the delirium group and 1·3 years (0·3-3·6) in the control group. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 909 Evidence: moderate

The use of conventional anti-dementia drugs is associated with a lower mortality in nursing home residents with dementia and should be widely used in this population. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 25,358 Evidence: moderate

Risk of Dementia in Individuals With Emergency Department Visits or Hospitalizations Due to Cannabis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-06-01

Individuals with cannabis use severe enough to require hospital-based care were at increased risk of a new dementia diagnosis compared with those with all-cause hospital-based care or the general population. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 6,086,794 Evidence: moderate

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were met in 303 patients, and 25 (8.3%) presented to the ED with delirium. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 303 Evidence: low

There were 140,055 subjects in the 1998-1999 cohort and 146,328 in the 1999-2000 cohort, of which 55.5 percent and 59.7 percent, respectively, were immunized. 4 key findings →

Participants: 140,055 Evidence: moderate

Age, sex, functional limitation, and malnutrition seem to be the strongest predictors of death for patients with Alzheimer's disease in nursing homes. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,264 Evidence: moderate

Our results suggest that search strategies that use automated electronic search strategies to extract Charlson comorbidities from the clinical notes contained within the electronic medical record are feasible and reliable. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,447 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive dysfunction, including dementia and delirium, is prevalent in geriatric emergency department (ED) patients, but often remains undetected. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 163 Evidence: moderate

Delirium in the emergency department: an independent predictor of death within 6 months

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of emergency medicine 2010-04-03

Study objective Delirium's adverse effect on long-term mortality in older hospitalized patients is well documented, whereas its effect in older emergency department (ED) patients remains unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 628 Evidence: moderate

Survival analyses indicated that subjects with the lowest EF scores were more likely to fall sooner and more likely to experience multiple falls during the 66 months of follow-up (p Conclusions/significance These findings demonstrate that among community-living older adults, the risk of future falls was predicted by performance on EF and attention tests conducted 5 years earlier. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Association Between Socioeconomic Factors, Race, and Use of a Specialty Memory Clinic

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2023-08-02

4,824 patients seen at the memory clinic between 2008-2018 were included in this study (mean age 72.7 [standard deviation 11.0] years, 2,712 [56%] female, 543 [11%] Black). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,824 Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled.

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 30,580 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events