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 1–22 of 22 studies with an author at University College London (GB) · tagged Care Services · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Alzheimer Disease Blood Biomarkers in Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2023-04-01

In this case-control study, blood biomarkers indicative of AD pathology demonstrated different dynamics of change after cardiac arrest. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 80 Evidence: high

Existing studies have included a narrow range of infectious diseases, relied on short follow-up periods, and provided little evidence for whether the increased risk is limited to specific dementia subtypes or attributable to specific microbes rather than infection burden. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate

Dementia diagnosis recording in general hospitals is increasing but remains less likely in some groups. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 21,387 Evidence: moderate

Although loneliness and social isolation have been linked to an increased risk of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease and dementia, their association with the risk of severe infection is uncertain. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 905 Evidence: moderate

Of 23 558 people without pre-existing dementia, 4135 (17·6%) had an admission with delirium. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 23,558 Evidence: moderate

Of 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Higher levels of P-tau181 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI: 1.17-1.51]), NfL (HR = 1.19 [95% CI: 1.03-1.36]), and GFAP (HR = 1.36 [95% CI: 1.22-1.52]), and a lower Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio (HR = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.68-0.95]) were associated with an increased risk of progressing to clinically-diagnosed DAT. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,007 Evidence: moderate

< 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

In our dataset search, we identified 108 910 people with a record indicating dementia at any time. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,819 Evidence: moderate

Observational population studies indicate that prevention of dementia and cognitive decline is being accomplished, possibly as an unintended result of better vascular prevention and healthier lifestyles. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

BackgroundWith the changing demographic landscape in most countries worldwide, early identification of cognitive impairment in multicultural populations is increasingly relevant. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 187 Evidence: low

Among 2935 patients (50.4% women; mean age=72.2 years; 19.8% subjective cognitive impairment, 39.8% mild cognitive impairment, and 40.4% dementia), larger WMH volume within projection fibres (B=0.24, SE=0.10, p=0.013) was associated with greater apathy. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,935 Evidence: low

Although plasma pTau181, pTau217, pTau231, and GFAP were significantly associated with both Aβ-PET and CSF pTau181, Aβ-PET explained more variance in the levels of these biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

A total of 30 articles were included. These detail the multifaceted responsibilities of clinical pharmacists in primary care for older people. 5 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

The risk of delirium admissions was elevated for the first 1-30 days of prescriptions [IRR 1.54 (95% CI 1.30-1.82) for men, 1.44 (1.22-1.70) for women] and whilst reducing over time for women [1.10 (0.94-1.29) for 91-365 days of prescriptions], it remained elevated for men [1.38 (1.17-1.64)]. 5 key findings →

Participants: 293 Evidence: low

LUS and cognitive impairment are strong predictors of delirium in elderly COVID-19 patients. 3 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: low

Delirium, a severe neuropsychiatric syndrome characterised by acute deficits in attention and self-awareness, is common among elderly inpatients, with incidence increasing with age and prolonged hospitalisation. 2 key findings →

Participants: 89 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. Show only studies that are free to read

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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