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 301–325 of 369 studies · free to read (page 13 of 15) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 369 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 369 studies tagged mortality — clear

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.

This study was a retrospective analysis of administrative data (20% sample) of 15 996 Medicare Part D enrollees who received a DES in 2006 to 2007. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

CONVERTING MOCA-J TO MMSE-J IN COMMUNITY-DWELLING JAPANESE OLDER ADULTS: A PILOT STUDY

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. PSYCHOLOGIA 2025-02-17

This study aimed to develop a conversion table for the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) to the Japanese version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-J) to facilitate prediction of the MMSE-J score from the MoCA-J score. 1 key finding →

Participants: 121 Evidence: low

Interprofessional case conferences may lead to more awareness regarding gaps in primary palliative care, one's own care routines or a lack of psychosocial support. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Older Adults' Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Gerontology 2015-06-04

The level of technology use in the context of aging in place is influenced by six major themes: challenges in the domain of independent living; behavioral options; personal thoughts on technology use; influence of the social network; influence of organizations, and the role of the physical environment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Counties had a mean prevalence of 65.3 per 1,000 (SD 15.5) for highly likely ADRD and 123.5 per 1,000 (SD 27.0) for all determinations. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,108 Evidence: low

Spending at end of life (EOL) accounts for a large and growing share of healthcare expenditures in the US, and often reflects aggressive care with questionable value for dying patients. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Home-based medical care (HBMC) delivers physician or advanced practice provider-led medical services for patients in private residences and domiciliary settings (eg, assisted living facilities, group/boarding homes). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among SNF admissions from 2013 to 2018, the share of ACO-attributed beneficiaries increased from 7.6% to 20.2%, MA enrollees increased from 25.2% to 32.8%, and non-ACO-attributed TM enrollees decreased from 67.2% to 47.3%. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

BackgroundA growing number of older adults in the United States have multiple chronic conditions which contribute to decreased functional ability and increased healthcare utilization. 5 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

The calibration models for photopic lux and correlated color temperature demonstrated strong accuracy, with an adjusted R² of 0.858 and 0.982, respectively, ensuring reliable sensor measurements. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The three modifications had comparable performance when the number of deaths was large relative to the denominator and the age distribution was as in the standard population. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

American Indian Caregivers Policy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Fourth World Journal 2025-08-13

American Indian governments located in a region west of the Cascade mountain range and the government of the state of Washington offer programs to serve the needs of a growing American Indian elder and disabled population through the services of individuals caring for family members and also individuals employed to provide care. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,601 Evidence: low

Stalling life expectancy and increased mortality in working ages deserve urgent attention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. The Lancet Public Health 2019-11-01

The effect of austerity and associated budgets are strong contenders,3Ruckert A Labonté R Health inequities in the age of austerity: the need for social protection policies. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The study sample was NHATS respondents who needed assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and who did not live with a spouse (N = 512). 3 key findings →

Participants: 512 Evidence: low

The TLC study used an appropriate design and data collection procedures, along with acceptable recruitment capability. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Disparity in attitudes regarding assisted dying among physicians and the general public in Japan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. BMC Medical Ethics 2025-01-20

The findings revealed that Japanese physicians did not display support for euthanasia (2%) and assisted suicide (1%); however, the general public supported euthanasia (33%) and assisted suicide (34%). 5 key findings →

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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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