alzhub.org
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.

Research

30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 76–100 of 405 studies · free to read · tagged Care Services (page 4 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,054 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Emergency Department Hallways Are Associated With Incident Delirium and Severe Agitation in Older Adults Living With Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2026-01-16

Our sample included 11,105 patients (median age 77, 51% female), with 2299 in the hallway group and 8806 in the non-hallway group. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 11,105 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A randomized controlled trial of an activity specific exercise program for individuals with Alzheimer disease in long-term care settings

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of geriatric physical therapy (2001) 2011-04-01

Subjects receiving the activity specific exercise program improved in ability to perform transfers, whereas subjects in the other 2 groups declined. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Comorbidity and polypharmacy in people with dementia: insights from a large, population-based cross-sectional analysis of primary care data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Age and ageing 2017-01-01

Such complex needs require an integrated response from general health professionals and multidisciplinary dementia specialists. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 291,169 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Quantifying diagnostic signal decay in dementia: a national study of Medicare hospitalization data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-11-01

Non-specific codes were most common. Alzheimer's and vascular dementia codes showed high regional variability. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,016 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Identifying undetected dementia in UK primary care patients: a retrospective case-control study comparing machine-learning and standard epidemiological approaches

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. BMC medical informatics and decision making 2019-12-02

Our model could aid GPs or health service planners with the early detection of dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 93,120 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Comparing post-acute rehabilitation use, length of stay, and outcomes experienced by Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with hip fracture in the United States: A secondary analysis of administrative data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. PLoS Medicine 2018-06-26

This was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association between zinc deficiency and adverse outcomes in patients with dementia: a matched cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Frontiers in Nutrition 2026-03-20

In this observational study, zinc deficiency was associated with increased 1-year mortality and infection-related complications in patients with dementia, with evidence of a dose–response relationship. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,241 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The impacts of air pollution on mortality and hospital readmission among Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias: a national retrospective cohort study in the USA

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The Lancet Planetary Health 2025-02-01

In both the mortality and readmission cohorts we found significant associations with each pollutant. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 118 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Postoperative delirium: a 76-year-old woman with delirium following surgery

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA 2012-07-01

Delirium (acute confusion) complicates 15% to 50% of major operations in older adults and is associated with other major postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, poor functional recovery, institutionalization, dementia, and death. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Cerebrospinal fluid VILIP-1 and YKL-40, candidate biomarkers to diagnose, predict and monitor Alzheimer's disease in a memory clinic cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2015-09-17

CSF levels of YKL-40 may have utility for discriminating between cognitively normal individuals and patients with MCI or AD. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Differences in Home Health Services and Outcomes Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA Health Forum 2024-03-01

Of 285 297 total patients, 180 283 (63.2%) were female; 586 (0.2%) were American Indian/Alaska Native, 8957 (3.1%) Asian, 28 694 (10.1%) Black, 7406 (2.6%) Hispanic, 1959 (0.7%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 237 017 (83.1%) non-Hispanic White, and 678 (0.2%) multiracial individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 178 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD)—a practical approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-11-28

DSD is linked to adverse outcomes, compared to dementia alone, like longer hospitalisation [3], mortality [3, 4], functional decline [3] and need for residential care [3]. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 64 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Use of Feeding Tubes Among Hospitalized Older Adults With Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-02-20

Among 143 331 older adults with dementia (83 536 [58.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 83.8 [7.5] years), 1312 (0.9%) received a feeding tube in hospital and 142 019 (99.1%) did not. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Characterizing Individuals Fulfilling Clinical Criteria for Limbic-Predominant Age-Related TDP-43 Encephalopathy in a Tertiary Memory Clinic

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2026-04-16

< 0.01). Using an operationalization of clinical criteria for LATE, 8.2% of participants with MCI or dementia from our tertiary memory clinic were classified as Possible-LATE, Probable-LATE, or LATE-AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Risk of dementia hospitalisation associated with cardiovascular risk factors in midlife and older age: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2009-08-19

During follow-up, 203 cases of hospitalisation with dementia were identified. 5 key findings →

Participants: 151 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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