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 326–350 of 369 studies · free to read (page 14 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 aimed to evaluate the impact of the policy to reduce the reimbursement fee for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) on the number of PEG procedures performed among older adults with dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

At Home versus in a Nursing Home: Long-term Care Settings and Marginal Utility

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Not indexed 2023

Marginal utility of financial resources when needing long-term care, and the related incentives for precautionary savings and insurance, may vary significantly by whether one receives care at home or in a nursing home. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We found that COVID patients initially experienced substantially longer hospital stays (8.3 vs 4.6 days) and higher 30-day mortality (34% vs 5%) compared to patients without COVID. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

These findings highlight potential access and quality-of-care issues in PR, with implications for Medicare Advantage benchmarks. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,965 Evidence: low

Validation of the advance care planning engagement survey in Singapore

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. BMC Palliative Care 2025-01-10

The ACPES scores were significantly higher for those who reported yes for pre-planning activities such as making a will, making a lasting power of attorney, telling one's doctor about end-of-life care preferences, and telling family or loved ones about end-of-life care preferences. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In Mae Pa, the palliative care need prevalence was 2.03 per 1,000, among them, 84.62% had non-cancer conditions and 38.46% had neurodegenerative diseases with frailty and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

In 2024, 90% of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees were in a plan that required prior authorization of home health care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Unexpected Suicidality in an Older Individual in an Emergency Department

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2013-06-01

On supplementary questioning, he revealed multiple recent social stressors, including the 1-year anniversary of his partner's death and an impending eviction from his home with the loss of his beloved garden. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Research participants enrolled in Falls Prevention EBPs reported decreased levels of loneliness and social isolation and were referred by physicians, social workers, and pharmacists using an order in the electronic medical record (EMR). 2 key findings →

Participants: 382 Evidence: low

The latter often experience a loss of functional independence and geriatric syndromes including falls, undernutrition and neurocognitive disorders (1) requiring significant care that generates health expenditure. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The median proportion of in-hospital LTC certification applications was 30.5% (IQR 24.5%-36.1%). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Between April 2020 and March 2021, the number of fall-related emergency admissions in England for adults over 65 years was 1933 per 100 000 people. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Importantly, delirium is not merely a transient cognitive fluctuation; it is independently associated with increased short- and long-term mortality, longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and persistent cognitive impairment comparable to mild dementia[4,5]. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study aims to analyze the spatial planning and operational strategies of three profile nursing homes in Copenhagen, Denmark-Hørgården, Peder Lykke Center, and Ørestad Plejecenter-and to derive design and operational implications for the development of Korean unit-based long-term care facilities for older adults. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Reasons for declining included mis-association with hospice, not seeing additional benefit to current care, and reluctance to change current care. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This has meant that fewer people are dying as a direct result of HIV, and the life expectancy for people living with HIV is almost the same as the general population in many countries. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Enrollment in an MA plan is associated with a higher probability of AWV uptake, particularly among vulnerable populations from racial and ethnic minorities, dual eligibility, and those diagnosed with ADRD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This Journal is not only a new publication but also the culmination of a shared vision and a timely response to one of the most significant demographic shifts in human history: the rapid aging of the South Asian population. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

↑ 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.

1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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